politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far so good. We might just get to the end of the week witho
Comments
-
I am yet to meet anybody who has voluntarily paid a penny more tax than they have to. I'm simply describing the fact that CGT on my main residence would be an enormous financial disincentive to ever sell it, one that would increase over time.HHemmelig said:
I think CGT is routinely applied to primary residences in the USA and it hasn't caused the sky to fall in there. With respect I think the arguments against it are in the end nothing more than self-interested bunk. It is only the capital gain that is taxed and presuming that it is indexed in some way and levied at a reasonable rate there is no reason why it should lead to disaster. We have got to lance the boil of people primarily viewing housing as an investment vehicle otherwise we will never solve the housing problem. As a property owner for the last 18 years I certainly stand to lose from such a policy but it is the right thing to do to give our childrens' generation a chance.kyf_100 said:
The CGT on my London place would be at least 40k if not more. I know London isn't the be all and end all of the world, but it is certainly where the housing shortage is felt most acutely. 40k is a heck of an incentive not to sell.
I used myself as an example to show how this policy could potentially affect homeowners across the board. But the thing to remember is the longer you hold on to a place, the more it appreciates in value (averaged out over 25 years, this is certainly the case). So the longer you own a place the bigger that CGT bill becomes.
The housing market will freeze up as people simply don't want to downsize or sell up any more, particularly if they've owned their place for a while.
The unintended consequences of restricted supply could be that prices actually go up.
If as you say your primary motivation is the next generation, then consider the example of a 65 year old couple with a £1m house in the SE bought for tuppence thirty years ago. Would you be willing to pay somewhere in the region of quarter of a million to downsize, _then_ have your kids pay another 40% IHT on your death?
As I say, ending the CGT exemption encourages house-hoarding both in the form of older people refusing to downsize and in incentivising people like me to hold on to existing properties as we move up the ladder.
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
0 -
It is the war without end.kle4 said:
Why three and not five? I'm comfortable with a rerun, free country and all that, but when presented as a solution I have doubts as to its efficacy.TheScreamingEagles said:
Technically it will be the third referendum.RobD said:
The losers always want another gowilliamglenn said:Lloyd Blankfein now calling for a second referendum:
https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/status/931170132616974336
Side with the highest overall average across the three wins.
The United Kingdom’s relationship with Europe often resembles the Western Front during World War One, a long bloody attritional battle, little progress with needlessly high casualties, last year’s referendum felt like it was the turning point equivalent of The Second Battle of Marne. Yet it almost feels like the referendum was more like The First Battle of The Somme.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/09/22/the-war-without-end/0 -
I disagree. Constantly throughout the Cameron years, we had rebellions from backbenchers on Europe votes (at least from 2011 onwards), we had periodic plots to oust Cameron (the Adam Afriyie one being the comic highlight), we had criticism from Tory MPs in interviews, we had regular Cabinet sackings due to scandals (Liam Fox, Andrew Mitchell, Maria Miller), we even had two defecting MPs at one stage.kle4 said:
Not even close to levels of internal division, chaos and new external issues.Danny565 said:
I can't see why you'd assume that, since she would basically be replicating the Miliband strategy - which, lest we forget, performed poorly against a similarly shambolic government.rottenborough said:
Yvette Cooper should be leader of the Labour party. Simples. They would be 10-15 points ahead by now.Danny565 said:I like Emily Thornberry quite a lot, but I'm still not sold on her being leader. Unfortunately, her manner just lends itself too easily to the 'snooty' and 'judgemental' stereotypes - I don't think she's like that, having seen more detailed interviews with her, but unfortunately Joe Public will be going with their first impressions from the 30-second soundbites on the news, where she does come across like that. I think she'd have a hard time winning the likes of Mansfield and Stoke.
My first choice for next leader right now would probably be Angela Rayner, but she's still about two years away from being ready I think.
Can't happen now because of Ed M's bonkers £3 a go vote change.
And all the while, people were saying "if Labour had anyone other than Ed Miliband leading them, they'd be well ahead in the polls".0 -
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:0 -
But we never really worried the government might collapse.Danny565 said:
I disagree. Constantly throughout the Cameron years, we had rebellions from backbenchers on Europe votes (at least from 2011 onwards), we had periodic plots to oust Cameron (the Adam Afriyie one being the comic highlight), we had criticism from Tory MPs in interviews, we had regular Cabinet sackings due to scandals (Liam Fox, Andrew Mitchell, Maria Miller), we even had two defecting MPs at one stage.kle4 said:
Not even close to levels of internal division, chaos and new external issues.Danny565 said:
I can't see why you'd assume that, since she would basically be replicating the Miliband strategy - which, lest we forget, performed poorly against a similarly shambolic government.rottenborough said:
Yvette Cooper should be leader of the Labour party. Simples. They would be 10-15 points ahead by now.Danny565 said:I like Emily Thornberry quite a lot, but I'm still not sold on her being leader. Unfortunately, her manner just lends itself too easily to the 'snooty' and 'judgemental' stereotypes - I don't think she's like that, having seen more detailed interviews with her, but unfortunately Joe Public will be going with their first impressions from the 30-second soundbites on the news, where she does come across like that. I think she'd have a hard time winning the likes of Mansfield and Stoke.
My first choice for next leader right now would probably be Angela Rayner, but she's still about two years away from being ready I think.
Can't happen now because of Ed M's bonkers £3 a go vote change.
And all the while, people were saying "if Labour had anyone other than Ed Miliband leading them, they'd be well ahead in the polls".0 -
It depends whether people think Brexit is deliverable at an acceptable cost. I suspect there won't be a conscious decision to overturn last year's result. More likely Brexit will be compromised to death.TGOHF said:
Will the Brexit referendum join that list in time or will remainerism live on into the 2020s ?stodge said:
It has surprised me how much the results of other referenda have been respected by the "losing" side.TheScreamingEagles said:
Parliament is sovereign, a future Parliament can do whatever it likes.
Just like the 1975 result would have been overturned eight years later by a general election result.0 -
The plan to reshuffle him after the budget is utterly moronic. May had two opportunities for a full reshuffle and she didn’t take them.SandyRentool said:
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:0 -
To the extent that that's true (and I don't think it is entirely), that's only because the Coalition majority was much bigger than the Con+DUP one is now. But there were still regular news stories about the Tories being "in meltdown" and "in chaos" throughout the 2010-15 years, with accompanying bafflement at how Labour weren't further ahead in the polls as a result of those stories. Plus ca change.kle4 said:
But we never really worried the government might collapse.Danny565 said:
I disagree. Constantly throughout the Cameron years, we had rebellions from backbenchers on Europe votes (at least from 2011 onwards), we had periodic plots to oust Cameron (the Adam Afriyie one being the comic highlight), we had criticism from Tory MPs in interviews, we had regular Cabinet sackings due to scandals (Liam Fox, Andrew Mitchell, Maria Miller), we even had two defecting MPs at one stage.kle4 said:
Not even close to levels of internal division, chaos and new external issues.Danny565 said:
I can't see why you'd assume that, since she would basically be replicating the Miliband strategy - which, lest we forget, performed poorly against a similarly shambolic government.rottenborough said:
Yvette Cooper should be leader of the Labour party. Simples. They would be 10-15 points ahead by now.Danny565 said:I like Emily Thornberry quite a lot, but I'm still not sold on her being leader. Unfortunately, her manner just lends itself too easily to the 'snooty' and 'judgemental' stereotypes - I don't think she's like that, having seen more detailed interviews with her, but unfortunately Joe Public will be going with their first impressions from the 30-second soundbites on the news, where she does come across like that. I think she'd have a hard time winning the likes of Mansfield and Stoke.
My first choice for next leader right now would probably be Angela Rayner, but she's still about two years away from being ready I think.
Can't happen now because of Ed M's bonkers £3 a go vote change.
And all the while, people were saying "if Labour had anyone other than Ed Miliband leading them, they'd be well ahead in the polls".0 -
I keep on telling you she's not very good and damaging the Tory party.RobD said:
The plan to reshuffle him after the budget is utterly moronic. May had two opportunities for a full reshuffle and she didn’t take them.SandyRentool said:
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:0 -
I don't know. Some people were really concerned that the chancellor might have travelled on a train without a valid ticket, and in so doing bring down the whole hollow undemocratic coalition regime.kle4 said:
But we never really worried the government might collapse.Danny565 said:
I disagree. Constantly throughout the Cameron years, we had rebellions from backbenchers on Europe votes (at least from 2011 onwards), we had periodic plots to oust Cameron (the Adam Afriyie one being the comic highlight), we had criticism from Tory MPs in interviews, we had regular Cabinet sackings due to scandals (Liam Fox, Andrew Mitchell, Maria Miller), we even had two defecting MPs at one stage.kle4 said:
Not even close to levels of internal division, chaos and new external issues.Danny565 said:
I can't see why you'd assume that, since she would basically be replicating the Miliband strategy - which, lest we forget, performed poorly against a similarly shambolic government.rottenborough said:
Yvette Cooper should be leader of the Labour party. Simples. They would be 10-15 points ahead by now.Danny565 said:I like Emily Thornberry quite a lot, but I'm still not sold on her being leader. Unfortunately, her manner just lends itself too easily to the 'snooty' and 'judgemental' stereotypes - I don't think she's like that, having seen more detailed interviews with her, but unfortunately Joe Public will be going with their first impressions from the 30-second soundbites on the news, where she does come across like that. I think she'd have a hard time winning the likes of Mansfield and Stoke.
My first choice for next leader right now would probably be Angela Rayner, but she's still about two years away from being ready I think.
Can't happen now because of Ed M's bonkers £3 a go vote change.
And all the while, people were saying "if Labour had anyone other than Ed Miliband leading them, they'd be well ahead in the polls".
How simple and innocent those days seem.0 -
A rather interesting suggestion (on EdM's podcast) for an initial implementation of LVT is to allow for voluntary valuations.kyf_100 said:
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
eg, set the rate at 3%/year - then allow whoever owns the land to value it, annually, at whatever level they want - and then pay 3% of that value.
To disincentivise pisstaking, the government/councils/housing associations etc can purchase the land at the declared value.0 -
I remember when people thought the coalition wouldn't last until Christmas 2010 and they were the optimists.kle4 said:
But we never really worried the government might collapse.Danny565 said:
I disagree. Constantly throughout the Cameron years, we had rebellions from backbenchers on Europe votes (at least from 2011 onwards), we had periodic plots to oust Cameron (the Adam Afriyie one being the comic highlight), we had criticism from Tory MPs in interviews, we had regular Cabinet sackings due to scandals (Liam Fox, Andrew Mitchell, Maria Miller), we even had two defecting MPs at one stage.kle4 said:
Not even close to levels of internal division, chaos and new external issues.Danny565 said:
I can't see why you'd assume that, since she would basically be replicating the Miliband strategy - which, lest we forget, performed poorly against a similarly shambolic government.rottenborough said:
Yvette Cooper should be leader of the Labour party. Simples. They would be 10-15 points ahead by now.Danny565 said:I like Emily Thornberry quite a lot, but I'm still not sold on her being leader. Unfortunately, her manner just lends itself too easily to the 'snooty' and 'judgemental' stereotypes - I don't think she's like that, having seen more detailed interviews with her, but unfortunately Joe Public will be going with their first impressions from the 30-second soundbites on the news, where she does come across like that. I think she'd have a hard time winning the likes of Mansfield and Stoke.
My first choice for next leader right now would probably be Angela Rayner, but she's still about two years away from being ready I think.
Can't happen now because of Ed M's bonkers £3 a go vote change.
And all the while, people were saying "if Labour had anyone other than Ed Miliband leading them, they'd be well ahead in the polls".0 -
In the USA, CGT on primary residences does not hinder retirees from downsizing (see the flood of seniors moving down to Florida and Arizona year after year) and nor does it cause the market to seize up. In fact it is a much more dynamic and cut-throat market than here. It is one of the many reasons why they have much more affordable housing than we do. It is not an issue which has caused the electoral suicide of politicians on either side of the house. Perhaps this is a pill which is peculiarly difficult for the British to swallow. But in the years of far worse austerity to come, the state is going to have to tap into the vast pool of unearned housing equity gain. The only question is whether it will be done in a sensible and measured way or in a Corbynite frenzy. The longer the Tories avoid touching this issue the more likely the latter outcome becomes.kyf_100 said:
I am yet to meet anybody who has voluntarily paid a penny more tax than they have to. I'm simply describing the fact that CGT on my main residence would be an enormous financial disincentive to ever sell it, one that would increase over time.HHemmelig said:
I think CGT is routinely applied to primary residences in the USA and it hasn't caused the sky to fall in there. With respect I think the arguments against it are in the end nothing more than self-interested bunk. It is only the capital gain that is taxed and presuming that it is indexed in some way and levied at a reasonable rate there is no reason why it should lead to disaster. We have got to lance the boil of people primarily viewing housing as an investment vehicle otherwise we will never solve the housing problem. As a property owner for the last 18 years I certainly stand to lose from such a policy but it is the right thing to do to give our childrens' generation a chance.kyf_100 said:
The unintended consequences of restricted supply could be that prices actually go up.
If as you say your primary motivation is the next generation, then consider the example of a 65 year old couple with a £1m house in the SE bought for tuppence thirty years ago. Would you be willing to pay somewhere in the region of quarter of a million to downsize, _then_ have your kids pay another 40% IHT on your death?
As I say, ending the CGT exemption encourages house-hoarding both in the form of older people refusing to downsize and in incentivising people like me to hold on to existing properties as we move up the ladder.
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.0 -
Really? I must have missed thatTheScreamingEagles said:
I keep on telling you she's not very good and damaging the Tory party.RobD said:
The plan to reshuffle him after the budget is utterly moronic. May had two opportunities for a full reshuffle and she didn’t take them.SandyRentool said:
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:
0 -
Up to a point. There's a tax-free allowance of $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) of a gain on a main residence. The tax rate for gains beyond that is just 15% for most people (max 20%).HHemmelig said:I think CGT is routinely applied to primary residences in the USA and it hasn't caused the sky to fall in there. ...
On the substantive point of the desirability of your suggestion, a tax which seizes up the already heavily seized-up UK housing market even more may not be a clever idea.0 -
After the initial shock had worn off, despite cabinet sackings and rebellions though, I cannot say I recall many thinking it would collapse, until toward the end when people wondered if the LDs might officially leave it to have 6 months or whatever out of government in advance of the election.TheScreamingEagles said:
I remember when people thought the coalition wouldn't last until Christmas 2010 and they were the optimists.kle4 said:
But we never really worried the government might collapse.Danny565 said:
I disagree. Constantly throughout the Cameron years, we had rebellions from backbenchers on Europe votes (at least from 2011 onwards), we had periodic plots to oust Cameron (the Adam Afriyie one being the comic highlight), we had criticism from Tory MPs in interviews, we had regular Cabinet sackings due to scandals (Liam Fox, Andrew Mitchell, Maria Miller), we even had two defecting MPs at one stage.kle4 said:
Not even close to levels of internal division, chaos and new external issues.Danny565 said:
I can't see why you'd assume that, since she would basically be replicating the Miliband strategy - which, lest we forget, performed poorly against a similarly shambolic government.rottenborough said:
Yvette Cooper should be leader of the Labour party. Simples. They would be 10-15 points ahead by now.Danny565 said:I like Emily Thornberry quite a lot, but I'm still not sold on her being leader. Unfortunately, her manner just lends itself too easily to the 'snooty' and 'judgemental' stereotypes - I don't think she's like that, having seen more detailed interviews with her, but unfortunately Joe Public will be going with their first impressions from the 30-second soundbites on the news, where she does come across like that. I think she'd have a hard time winning the likes of Mansfield and Stoke.
My first choice for next leader right now would probably be Angela Rayner, but she's still about two years away from being ready I think.
Can't happen now because of Ed M's bonkers £3 a go vote change.
And all the while, people were saying "if Labour had anyone other than Ed Miliband leading them, they'd be well ahead in the polls".0 -
She can't. Her position is too weak. And what would be the point? Can you name a reshuffle that has changed a government's political fortunes?RobD said:
The plan to reshuffle him after the budget is utterly moronic. May had two opportunities for a full reshuffle and she didn’t take them.SandyRentool said:
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:0 -
The guard on my train has just used the term 'fellow travellers' in an announcement. However, no sign of Jezza sitting on the floor.0
-
Yes I think that's right, from what I can remember from my wife's tax return. Seems a fair compromise and no reason why we couldn't do similar here to sap the more egregious gains whilst not impacting Joe Bloggs who sold his semi for a small profit.Richard_Nabavi said:
Up to a point. There's a tax-free allowance of $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) of a gain on your main residence. The tax rate for gains beyond that is just 15% for most people (max 20%).HHemmelig said:I think CGT is routinely applied to primary residences in the USA and it hasn't caused the sky to fall in there. ...
0 -
What's a train? I think you mean the guard on your 'service' who clearly needs reeducating to refer to people as 'customers', not travellers.SandyRentool said:The guard on my train has just used the term 'fellow travellers' in an announcement. However, no sign of Jezza sitting on the floor.
0 -
@JeremyCliffe: Three former presidents of the BDI (main voice of German industry) will hold a press conference on Monday to call for an "exit from Brexit".0
-
Could be worse. He could be calling you a capitalist running dog.SandyRentool said:The guard on my train has just used the term 'fellow travellers' in an announcement. However, no sign of Jezza sitting on the floor.
0 -
Wasn't there something about how buying a fish in Morrisons made Cameron unfit to be PM?
(Simon May) Different times (/Simon Mayo)0 -
They are Vince Cable and I claim my £5.Scott_P said:@JeremyCliffe: Three former presidents of the BDI (main voice of German industry) will hold a press conference on Monday to call for an "exit from Brexit".
0 -
Leavers were right, German car manufacturers/industry would come to our rescue.Scott_P said:@JeremyCliffe: Three former presidents of the BDI (main voice of German industry) will hold a press conference on Monday to call for an "exit from Brexit".
0 -
More seriously, sounds like some in Europe have woken up to the size of our market.0
-
Wasn't that because he went to Morrisons riding a horse Rebekah Brooks gave him?JosiasJessop said:Wasn't there something about how buying a fish in Morrisons made Cameron unfit to be PM?
(Simon May) Different times (/Simon Mayo)0 -
Even on a £200k house that would be £6k per year - miles more than Council Tax.Pong said:
A rather interesting suggestion (on EdM's podcast) for an initial implementation of LVT is to allow for voluntary valuations.kyf_100 said:
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
eg, set the rate at 3%/year - then allow whoever owns the land to value it, annually, at whatever level they want - and then pay 3% of that value.
To disincentivise pisstaking, the government/councils/housing associations etc can purchase the land at the declared value.
How on earth is someone in a modest (in many parts of the country) £200k house suddenly going to find approx an extra £5k per year?0 -
Well, quite recently we've had Corbyn being declared unfit for PM because he doesn't shave often enough, and May being told to stand down because she had a cough, so maybe not so different.JosiasJessop said:Wasn't there something about how buying a fish in Morrisons made Cameron unfit to be PM?
(cue Simon May) Different times0 -
Most insurance is not void. So you are just untaxed.JosiasJessop said:Who'd have thunk it?
Tax disc: Car tax evasion triples after paper version scrapped
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42009111
Edit: if a car is untaxed, does it also mean it is automatically uninsured? I.e. is any insurance on a car void if it is untaxed? Can you even insure an untaxed car?0 -
The USA has a lot more space than we do. Also, a lot more trailer parks. And a highly restrictive immigration policy. I'm not sure a like-for-like comparison really works.HHemmelig said:
In the USA, CGT on primary residences does not hinder retirees from downsizing (see the flood of seniors moving down to Florida and Arizona year after year) and nor does it cause the market to seize up. In fact it is a much more dynamic and cut-throat market than here. It is one of the many reasons why they have much more affordable housing than we do. It is not an issue which has caused the electoral suicide of politicians on either side of the house. Perhaps this is a pill which is peculiarly difficult for the British to swallow. But in the years of far worse austerity to come, the state is going to have to tap into the vast pool of unearned housing equity gain. The only question is whether it will be done in a sensible and measured way or in a Corbynite frenzy. The longer the Tories avoid touching this issue the more likely the latter outcome becomes.
Additionally, their rate of CGT is 10-20% depending on income and how long you have had the asset for, so much lower than the 28% faced by UK homeowners.
And there is a $250,000 exclusion ($500,000 for couples) on housing.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701
While I agree with you that something must be done about the housing crisis, imposing a sudden and unexpected 28% on people's primary residence is somewhat courageous, in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
It is my belief that such a policy would restrict supply in a way that artificially inflates prices, exacerbating the current situation further.
"Build more houses" would be my first solution to solving the crisis, restricting immigration to sustainable levels would be the second (hint: 250,000 new people per annum is not sustainable when you are only building about 150,000 new houses per year).
There are definitely other avenues worth exploring, a land value tax is one of them. Another one would be to put the squeeze on BTL landlords even more - although this has problems in that it may cause rents to rise.
The other problem, of course, is that people will never stop seeing houses as investments for as long as there remain few alternative options for the average joe. Pensions can (and have been) raided, the stock market is risky as hell, and there's no financial incentive to keep money in a savings account as long as interest rates remain where they are.
Few things, averaged out over a 25 year investment, are "as safe as houses".
0 -
is it evasion, it could easily be avoidance..Alistair said:
Most insurance is not void. So you are just untaxed.JosiasJessop said:Who'd have thunk it?
Tax disc: Car tax evasion triples after paper version scrapped
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42009111
Edit: if a car is untaxed, does it also mean it is automatically uninsured? I.e. is any insurance on a car void if it is untaxed? Can you even insure an untaxed car?0 -
Oh dear. That worked out well didn't it.JosiasJessop said:Who'd have thunk it?
Tax disc: Car tax evasion triples after paper version scrapped
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42009111
Edit: if a car is untaxed, does it also mean it is automatically uninsured? I.e. is any insurance on a car void if it is untaxed? Can you even insure an untaxed car?0 -
I want Tim back. It'd be great to hear his views on current politics.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wasn't that because he went to Morrisons riding a horse Rebekah Brooks gave him?JosiasJessop said:Wasn't there something about how buying a fish in Morrisons made Cameron unfit to be PM?
(Simon May) Different times (/Simon Mayo) 0 -
Why do they think the solution is no Brexit? Could it be that they think there is value in the single market and the political institutions of Europe?Mortimer said:More seriously, sounds like some in Europe have woken up to the size of our market.
0 -
Land value tax, not property value tax.MikeL said:
Even on a £200k house that would be £6k per year - miles more than Council Tax.Pong said:
A rather interesting suggestion (on EdM's podcast) for an initial implementation of LVT is to allow for voluntary valuations.kyf_100 said:
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
eg, set the rate at 3%/year - then allow whoever owns the land to value it, annually, at whatever level they want - and then pay 3% of that value.
To disincentivise pisstaking, the government/councils/housing associations etc can purchase the land at the declared value.
How on earth is someone in a modest (in many parts of the country) £200k house suddenly going to find approx an extra £5k per year?0 -
So much for my 'fellow travellers' - not one person joined me when I started singing Bandiera Rossa. However, I now have a table to myself.0
-
My singing would have cleared the carriage, and possibly have had the police waiting at the next station.SandyRentool said:So much for my 'fellow travellers' - not one person joined me when I started singing Bandiera Rossa. However, I now have a table to myself.
As an aside, I once witnessed a half-Pakistani man chase a dwarf up and down a Central Line tube train whilst wielding a sword.
Different times ... 0 -
Probably friends of Britain - in that, just like Vince Cable.Mortimer said:
They are Vince Cable and I claim my £5.Scott_P said:@JeremyCliffe: Three former presidents of the BDI (main voice of German industry) will hold a press conference on Monday to call for an "exit from Brexit".
Much better than the ambitious Tory cynics who are wrecking our economy.0 -
We can't change the fact that we are a very overcrowded island already which means that "building more houses" will always be little more than a meaningless politicians soundbite, unless we carpetbomb the greenbelt with hundreds of thousands of houses and essentially consign all green space in the home counties to history. Frustrating as it may be, there's nothing much we can do to get immigration back down to sustainable to 1990s levels whilever billions of newly-mobile people in the third world are prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the prosperous west.kyf_100 said:
The USA has a lot more space than we do. Also, a lot more trailer parks. And a highly restrictive immigration policy. I'm not sure a like-for-like comparison really works.HHemmelig said:
Additionally, their rate of CGT is 10-20% depending on income and how long you have had the asset for, so much lower than the 28% faced by UK homeowners.
And there is a $250,000 exclusion ($500,000 for couples) on housing.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701
While I agree with you that something must be done about the housing crisis, imposing a sudden and unexpected 28% on people's primary residence is somewhat courageous, in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
It is my belief that such a policy would restrict supply in a way that artificially inflates prices, exacerbating the current situation further.
"Build more houses" would be my first solution to solving the crisis, restricting immigration to sustainable levels would be the second (hint: 250,000 new people per annum is not sustainable when you are only building about 150,000 new houses per year).
There are definitely other avenues worth exploring, a land value tax is one of them. Another one would be to put the squeeze on BTL landlords even more - although this has problems in that it may cause rents to rise.
The other problem, of course, is that people will never stop seeing houses as investments for as long as there remain few alternative options for the average joe. Pensions can (and have been) raided, the stock market is risky as hell, and there's no financial incentive to keep money in a savings account as long as interest rates remain where they are.
Few things, averaged out over a 25 year investment, are "as safe as houses".
Much of the rest of your post I agree with, in particular I'd aim to get interest rates back up to 5% as soon as practically possible.0 -
Idle curiosity - in Danish your name means "secret" - is that deliberate, or really your name, or is there another meaning?HHemmelig said:
Yes I think that's right, from what I can remember from my wife's tax return. Seems a fair compromise and no reason why we couldn't do similar here to sap the more egregious gains whilst not impacting Joe Bloggs who sold his semi for a small profit.Richard_Nabavi said:
Up to a point. There's a tax-free allowance of $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) of a gain on your main residence. The tax rate for gains beyond that is just 15% for most people (max 20%).HHemmelig said:I think CGT is routinely applied to primary residences in the USA and it hasn't caused the sky to fall in there. ...
0 -
Sajid Ali, Zaheer Iqbal, and Riaz Makhmood were found guilty of a total of 15 counts of indecent assaultFrancisUrquhart said:Three men have been found guilty of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in the first trial to come out of the National Crime Agency's investigation into historical abuse in Rotherham.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-420039480 -
Someone said that to a cricket (watching) tour I was on once. I had to point that while he might be, some of us were fully paid up Party members.SandyRentool said:The guard on my train has just used the term 'fellow travellers' in an announcement. However, no sign of Jezza sitting on the floor.
I don’t think he spoke to me again!0 -
"Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. We regret to inform you that due to delays in the withering away of the state, people sitting in upper or middle class seats will be taken out and shot... We thank you for travelling with Stalin Trains..."AlastairMeeks said:
Could be worse. He could be calling you a capitalist running dog.SandyRentool said:The guard on my train has just used the term 'fellow travellers' in an announcement. However, no sign of Jezza sitting on the floor.
0 -
Why was the dwarf being chased if he (assumption) had a sword?JosiasJessop said:
My singing would have cleared the carriage, and possibly have had the police waiting at the next station.SandyRentool said:So much for my 'fellow travellers' - not one person joined me when I started singing Bandiera Rossa. However, I now have a table to myself.
As an aside, I once witnessed a half-Pakistani man chase a dwarf up and down a Central Line tube train whilst wielding a sword.
Different times ...0 -
In retrospect, the name should have been a give away, but having escaped, I would still recommend the rest of the service.kyf_100 said:
"Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. We regret to inform you that due to delays in the withering away of the state, people sitting in upper or middle class seats will be taken out and shot... We thank you for travelling with Stalin Trains..."AlastairMeeks said:
Could be worse. He could be calling you a capitalist running dog.SandyRentool said:The guard on my train has just used the term 'fellow travellers' in an announcement. However, no sign of Jezza sitting on the floor.
0 -
In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000.
In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so.
In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million.
In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million.
In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.0 -
Nor do I. However, concern at immigration stretches pretty wide - less so among Remainers than Leavers, obviously, but not non-existent - and public perception drives policy to a large degree.AlastairMeeks said:In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000.
In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so.
In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million.
In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million.
In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.0 -
Norwegian also...the moniker dates from when I lived thereNickPalmer said:
Idle curiosity - in Danish your name means "secret" - is that deliberate, or really your name, or is there another meaning?HHemmelig said:
Yes I think that's right, from what I can remember from my wife's tax return. Seems a fair compromise and no reason why we couldn't do similar here to sap the more egregious gains whilst not impacting Joe Bloggs who sold his semi for a small profit.Richard_Nabavi said:
Up to a point. There's a tax-free allowance of $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) of a gain on your main residence. The tax rate for gains beyond that is just 15% for most people (max 20%).HHemmelig said:I think CGT is routinely applied to primary residences in the USA and it hasn't caused the sky to fall in there. ...
0 -
Ah, the 1997 Conservative Manifesto. If anything, a longer and more effective suicide vote than the 1983 Labour version.HHemmelig said:
A rare lapse of knowledge on your part there Stodge. Creating an elected Mayor of London was Michael Heseltine's brainchild and was in the Conservatives' 1997 manifesto. Why would they seek to abolish their own idea?
The 1998 Referendum was a 72-28 vote in favour of a GLA and a Mayor - even Bromley supported it 57-43. I'm trying to remember the campaign (it was a while ago). Labour and the LDs were in favour and I thought the No campaign was supported by the Conservatives.0 -
Many people feel "slightly awkward" when they hear foreign languages being spoken on the train. #thoughtlessSandyRentool said:So much for my 'fellow travellers' - not one person joined me when I started singing Bandiera Rossa. However, I now have a table to myself.
0 -
Proposals seem usually to include a bodge on houses and similar in the small print, sufficient to persuade the voters in the houses to support the proposal.Alistair said:
Land value tax, not property value tax.MikeL said:
Even on a £200k house that would be £6k per year - miles more than Council Tax.Pong said:
A rather interesting suggestion (on EdM's podcast) for an initial implementation of LVT is to allow for voluntary valuations.kyf_100 said:
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
eg, set the rate at 3%/year - then allow whoever owns the land to value it, annually, at whatever level they want - and then pay 3% of that value.
To disincentivise pisstaking, the government/councils/housing associations etc can purchase the land at the declared value.
How on earth is someone in a modest (in many parts of the country) £200k house suddenly going to find approx an extra £5k per year?
The issue I have with LVT is that it comes down to a bureaucrat guessing what a piece of land is worth, and taxing the owner on the basis of the guess.
Given the huge discrepancies I have seen recently in valuation and sale figures, I think the idea is risible.0 -
I think that AlastairMeeks quite sensibly suggested a few weeks ago that one thing we can do is switch away from building small sized semis with their tiny tufts of garden out front and back to medium density housing, four or five storeys high.HHemmelig said:
We can't change the fact that we are a very overcrowded island already which means that "building more houses" will always be little more than a meaningless politicians soundbite, unless we carpetbomb the greenbelt with hundreds of thousands of houses and essentially consign all green space in the home counties to history. Frustrating as it may be, there's nothing much we can do to get immigration back down to sustainable to 1990s levels whilever billions of newly-mobile people in the third world are prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the prosperous west.
Much of the rest of your post I agree with, in particular I'd aim to get interest rates back up to 5% as soon as practically possible.
I personally don't have a problem with immigration (though I understand why many working class people feel frustrated by declining living standards and wages), but I do think it needs to be sustainable. And right now there doesn't seem to be the political will to either build adequate housing stock for a growing population, or provide adequate healthcare and education provision for that rapid expansion. Quite simply something has to give - and as highly globalised as the world is, as an island nation we always have the option of not letting quite so many people in.0 -
Nope the Conservatives supported Yes*. Though their ideal was a dictatorial mayor without the GLA. I wonder if we bumped into each other in Bromley....I was politically active there in the Hague/IDS years.stodge said:
Ah, the 1997 Conservative Manifesto. If anything, a longer and more effective suicide vote than the 1983 Labour version.HHemmelig said:
A rare lapse of knowledge on your part there Stodge. Creating an elected Mayor of London was Michael Heseltine's brainchild and was in the Conservatives' 1997 manifesto. Why would they seek to abolish their own idea?
The 1998 Referendum was a 72-28 vote in favour of a GLA and a Mayor - even Bromley supported it 57-43. I'm trying to remember the campaign (it was a while ago). Labour and the LDs were in favour and I thought the No campaign was supported by the Conservatives.
*EDIT: the Conservative leadership supported Yes. Many in the Tory grassroots and ordinary Tory voters voted No, encouraged by recalcitrant Tory backbenchers like Eric Forth.0 -
Right now, how on earth is a couple on an average wage supposed to afford the average house without a) a substantial inheritance and b) bankrupting themselves if rates rise, or house prices subsequently fall even a moderate amount?MikeL said:
Even on a £200k house that would be £6k per year - miles more than Council Tax.Pong said:
A rather interesting suggestion (on EdM's podcast) for an initial implementation of LVT is to allow for voluntary valuations.kyf_100 said:
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
eg, set the rate at 3%/year - then allow whoever owns the land to value it, annually, at whatever level they want - and then pay 3% of that value.
To disincentivise pisstaking, the government/councils/housing associations etc can purchase the land at the declared value.
How on earth is someone in a modest (in many parts of the country) £200k house suddenly going to find approx an extra £5k per year?
Anyway, 3% was a random rate I used for my example. It could be 1.82% or 2.37% or 5%. In reality, land/property values would gradually fall over a few years, post-implementation. It would probably make sense to roll other property taxes into a single LVT (council tax, stamp duty etc) - and perhaps even fund the dementia tax/social care costs from it.
The rate and other details would all be up for discussion.
The main benefit would be that your kids would be able to afford to live near where they work and not have to rely on you popping off before they can get an inheritance - and enough stability to start a family if they choose.0 -
They were both in a QMW drama production (something Shakesperian). The man with a sword was playing a King, and the dwarf a fool. We all got rather drunk after a practice and that ensued on the journey back to halls.OldKingCole said:
Why was the dwarf being chased if he (assumption) had a sword?JosiasJessop said:
My singing would have cleared the carriage, and possibly have had the police waiting at the next station.SandyRentool said:So much for my 'fellow travellers' - not one person joined me when I started singing Bandiera Rossa. However, I now have a table to myself.
As an aside, I once witnessed a half-Pakistani man chase a dwarf up and down a Central Line tube train whilst wielding a sword.
Different times ...
Quite hilarious at the time; not so much for the people who rather rapidly moved out of the carriage...
Still more successful than the Shakesperian play at school (with the same boy). The teacher thought he would be more kingly if he had a hawk on his arm. So the hawk swooped over the guests and pooped on some.
It's amusing that the boy who people thought on two occasions had the countenance of a King, is now a Queen ...0 -
Nothing to do with our massive goods trade deficit with the EU, of course....williamglenn said:
Why do they think the solution is no Brexit? Could it be that they think there is value in the single market and the political institutions of Europe?Mortimer said:More seriously, sounds like some in Europe have woken up to the size of our market.
0 -
It's not that surprising when politicians are happy to campaign on xenophobic lies. Those who supported such campaigns can't then pretend that they didn't happen.kle4 said:
Nor do I. However, concern at immigration stretches pretty wide - less so among Remainers than Leavers, obviously, but not non-existent - and public perception drives policy to a large degree.AlastairMeeks said:In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000.
In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so.
In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million.
In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million.
In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.0 -
Can ask that you at least make your astroturfing interesting? It's just dull, at present.PClipp said:
Probably friends of Britain - in that, just like Vince Cable.Mortimer said:
They are Vince Cable and I claim my £5.Scott_P said:@JeremyCliffe: Three former presidents of the BDI (main voice of German industry) will hold a press conference on Monday to call for an "exit from Brexit".
Much better than the ambitious Tory cynics who are wrecking our economy.0 -
This is the first conservative budget statement that I have little confidence in even before it is delivered.
I do not trust Hammond to get it right0 -
Perhaps it is a zeugma?OldKingCole said:
Why was the dwarf being chased if he (assumption) had a sword?JosiasJessop said:
My singing would have cleared the carriage, and possibly have had the police waiting at the next station.SandyRentool said:So much for my 'fellow travellers' - not one person joined me when I started singing Bandiera Rossa. However, I now have a table to myself.
As an aside, I once witnessed a half-Pakistani man chase a dwarf up and down a Central Line tube train whilst wielding a sword.
Different times ...0 -
What percentage of Britain do you think is currently built on?HHemmelig said:
We can't change the fact that we are a very overcrowded island already which means that "building more houses" will always be little more than a meaningless politicians soundbite, unless we carpetbomb the greenbelt with hundreds of thousands of houses and essentially consign all green space in the home counties to history. Frustrating as it may be, there's nothing much we can do to get immigration back down to sustainable to 1990s levels whilever billions of newly-mobile people in the third world are prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the prosperous west.kyf_100 said:
The USA has a lot more space than we do. Also, a lot more trailer parks. And a highly restrictive immigration policy. I'm not sure a like-for-like comparison really works.HHemmelig said:
Additionally, their rate of CGT is 10-20% depending on income and how long you have had the asset for, so much lower than the 28% faced by UK homeowners.
And there is a $250,000 exclusion ($500,000 for couples) on housing.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701
While I agree with you that something must be done about the housing crisis, imposing a sudden and unexpected 28% on people's primary residence is somewhat courageous, in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
It is my belief that such a policy would restrict supply in a way that artificially inflates prices, exacerbating the current situation further.
"Build more houses" would be my first solution to solving the crisis, restricting immigration to sustainable levels would be the second (hint: 250,000 new people per annum is not sustainable when you are only building about 150,000 new houses per year).
There are definitely other avenues worth exploring, a land value tax is one of them. Another one would be to put the squeeze on BTL landlords even more - although this has problems in that it may cause rents to rise.
The other problem, of course, is that people will never stop seeing houses as investments for as long as there remain few alternative options for the average joe. Pensions can (and have been) raided, the stock market is risky as hell, and there's no financial incentive to keep money in a savings account as long as interest rates remain where they are.
Few things, averaged out over a 25 year investment, are "as safe as houses".
Much of the rest of your post I agree with, in particular I'd aim to get interest rates back up to 5% as soon as practically possible.0 -
Alastair Meeks (I'm guessing) does not know what it is like living in a flat with children and no outside space.kyf_100 said:
I think that AlastairMeeks quite sensibly suggested a few weeks ago that one thing we can do is switch away from building small sized semis with their tiny tufts of garden out front and back to medium density housing, four or five storeys high.HHemmelig said:
We can't change the fact that we are a very overcrowded island already which means that "building more houses" will always be little more than a meaningless politicians soundbite, unless we carpetbomb the greenbelt with hundreds of thousands of houses and essentially consign all green space in the home counties to history. Frustrating as it may be, there's nothing much we can do to get immigration back down to sustainable to 1990s levels whilever billions of newly-mobile people in the third world are prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the prosperous west.
Much of the rest of your post I agree with, in particular I'd aim to get interest rates back up to 5% as soon as practically possible.
I personally don't have a problem with immigration (though I understand why many working class people feel frustrated by declining living standards and wages), but I do think it needs to be sustainable. And right now there doesn't seem to be the political will to either build adequate housing stock for a growing population, or provide adequate healthcare and education provision for that rapid expansion. Quite simply something has to give - and as highly globalised as the world is, as an island nation we always have the option of not letting quite so many people in.
Narrow 3/4 storey town houses are a good compromise for families though. I love mine though you need to get used to the stairs.0 -
Yawn.AlastairMeeks said:
It's not that surprising when politicians are happy to campaign on xenophobic lies. Those who supported such campaigns can't then pretend that they didn't happen.kle4 said:
Nor do I. However, concern at immigration stretches pretty wide - less so among Remainers than Leavers, obviously, but not non-existent - and public perception drives policy to a large degree.AlastairMeeks said:In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000.
In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so.
In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million.
In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million.
In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.0 -
This is an interesting toolAlistair said:
What percentage of Britain do you think is currently built on?HHemmelig said:
We can't change the fact that we are a very overcrowded island already which means that "building more houses" will always be little more than a meaningless politicians soundbite, unless we carpetbomb the greenbelt with hundreds of thousands of houses and essentially consign all green space in the home counties to history. Frustrating as it may be, there's nothing much we can do to get immigration back down to sustainable to 1990s levels whilever billions of newly-mobile people in the third world are prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the prosperous west.kyf_100 said:
The USA has a lot more space than we do. Also, a lot more trailer parks. And a highly restrictive immigration policy. I'm not sure a like-for-like comparison really works.HHemmelig said:
Additionally, their rate of CGT is 10-20% depending on income and how long you have had the asset for, so much lower than the 28% faced by UK homeowners.
And there is a $250,000 exclusion ($500,000 for couples) on housing.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701
While I agree with you that something must be done about the housing crisis, imposing a sudden and unexpected 28% on people's primary residence is somewhat courageous, in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
It is my belief that such a policy would restrict supply in a way that artificially inflates prices, exacerbating the current situation further.
"Build more houses" would be my first solution to solving the crisis, restricting immigration to sustainable levels would be the second (hint: 250,000 new people per annum is not sustainable when you are only building about 150,000 new houses per year).
There are definitely other avenues worth exploring, a land value tax is one of them. Another one would be to put the squeeze on BTL landlords even more - although this has problems in that it may cause rents to rise.
The other problem, of course, is that people will never stop seeing houses as investments for as long as there remain few alternative options for the average joe. Pensions can (and have been) raided, the stock market is risky as hell, and there's no financial incentive to keep money in a savings account as long as interest rates remain where they are.
Few things, averaged out over a 25 year investment, are "as safe as houses".
Much of the rest of your post I agree with, in particular I'd aim to get interest rates back up to 5% as soon as practically possible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-419012940 -
That's all absolutely fine.Pong said:
Right now, how on earth is a couple on an average wage supposed to afford the average house without a) a substantial inheritance and b) bankrupting themselves if rates rise, or house prices subsequently fall even a moderate amount?MikeL said:
Even on a £200k house that would be £6k per year - miles more than Council Tax.Pong said:
A rather interesting suggestion (on EdM's podcast) for an initial implementation of LVT is to allow for voluntary valuations.kyf_100 said:
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
eg, set the rate at 3%/year - then allow whoever owns the land to value it, annually, at whatever level they want - and then pay 3% of that value.
To disincentivise pisstaking, the government/councils/housing associations etc can purchase the land at the declared value.
How on earth is someone in a modest (in many parts of the country) £200k house suddenly going to find approx an extra £5k per year?
Anyway, 3% was a random rate I used for my example. It could be 1.82% or 2.37% or 5%. In reality, land/property values would gradually fall over a few years, post-implementation. It would probably make sense to roll other property taxes into a single LVT (council tax, stamp duty etc) - and perhaps even fund the dementia tax/social care costs from it.
The rate and other details would all be up for discussion.
The main benefit would be that your kids would be able to afford to live near where they work and not have to rely on you popping off before they can get an inheritance - and enough stability to start a family if they choose.
But it's not OK to place a completely unacceptable burden on existing home owners of modest means.
People rolling in it - fine, they can obviously cope.
But I don't think it's reasonable to place a huge tax increase on someone in an average job living in an average house.0 -
Outside space does not need to be individual outside space.HHemmelig said:
Alastair Meeks (I'm guessing) does not know what it is like living in a flat with children and no outside space.kyf_100 said:
I think that AlastairMeeks quite sensibly suggested a few weeks ago that one thing we can do is switch away from building small sized semis with their tiny tufts of garden out front and back to medium density housing, four or five storeys high.HHemmelig said:
We can't change the fact that we are a very overcrowded island already which means that "building more houses" will always be little more than a meaningless politicians soundbite, unless we carpetbomb the greenbelt with hundreds of thousands of houses and essentially consign all green space in the home counties to history. Frustrating as it may be, there's nothing much we can do to get immigration back down to sustainable to 1990s levels whilever billions of newly-mobile people in the third world are prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the prosperous west.
Much of the rest of your post I agree with, in particular I'd aim to get interest rates back up to 5% as soon as practically possible.
I personally don't have a problem with immigration (though I understand why many working class people feel frustrated by declining living standards and wages), but I do think it needs to be sustainable. And right now there doesn't seem to be the political will to either build adequate housing stock for a growing population, or provide adequate healthcare and education provision for that rapid expansion. Quite simply something has to give - and as highly globalised as the world is, as an island nation we always have the option of not letting quite so many people in.
Narrow 3/4 storey town houses are a good compromise for families though. I love mine though you need to get used to the stairs.
My downstairs neighbours have two small children in a flat with no outside space. They seem very happy.0 -
Not the best for those with babies and young children though. Climbing flights of stairs in the middle of the night when they cry is highly non-optimal.HHemmelig said:
Alastair Meeks (I'm guessing) does not know what it is like living in a flat with children and no outside space.kyf_100 said:
I think that AlastairMeeks quite sensibly suggested a few weeks ago that one thing we can do is switch away from building small sized semis with their tiny tufts of garden out front and back to medium density housing, four or five storeys high.HHemmelig said:
We can't change the fact that we are a very overcrowded island already which means that "building more houses" will always be little more than a meaningless politicians soundbite, unless we carpetbomb the greenbelt with hundreds of thousands of houses and essentially consign all green space in the home counties to history. Frustrating as it may be, there's nothing much we can do to get immigration back down to sustainable to 1990s levels whilever billions of newly-mobile people in the third world are prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the prosperous west.
Much of the rest of your post I agree with, in particular I'd aim to get interest rates back up to 5% as soon as practically possible.
I personally don't have a problem with immigration (though I understand why many working class people feel frustrated by declining living standards and wages), but I do think it needs to be sustainable. And right now there doesn't seem to be the political will to either build adequate housing stock for a growing population, or provide adequate healthcare and education provision for that rapid expansion. Quite simply something has to give - and as highly globalised as the world is, as an island nation we always have the option of not letting quite so many people in.
Narrow 3/4 storey town houses are a good compromise for families though. I love mine though you need to get used to the stairs.0 -
That is the most meaningless statistic in the world unless you state with reasons what is an acceptable percentage. Are you thinking that as a rule of thumb anything south of 30% sounds absolutely fine, or what?Alistair said:
What percentage of Britain do you think is currently built on?HHemmelig said:
We can't change the fact that we are a very overcrowded island already which means that "building more houses" will always be little more than a meaningless politicians soundbite, unless we carpetbomb the greenbelt with hundreds of thousands of houses and essentially consign all green space in the home counties to history. Frustrating as it may be, there's nothing much we can do to get immigration back down to sustainable to 1990s levels whilever billions of newly-mobile people in the third world are prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the prosperous west.kyf_100 said:
The USA has a lot more space than we do. Also, a lot more trailer parks. And a highly restrictive immigration policy. I'm not sure a like-for-like comparison really works.HHemmelig said:
Additionally, their rate of CGT is 10-20% depending on income and how long you have had the asset for, so much lower than the 28% faced by UK homeowners.
And there is a $250,000 exclusion ($500,000 for couples) on housing.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701
While I agree with you that something must be done about the housing crisis, imposing a sudden and unexpected 28% on people's primary residence is somewhat courageous, in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
It is my belief that such a policy would restrict supply in a way that artificially inflates prices, exacerbating the current situation further.
"Build more houses" would be my first solution to solving the crisis, restricting immigration to sustainable levels would be the second (hint: 250,000 new people per annum is not sustainable when you are only building about 150,000 new houses per year).
There are definitely other avenues worth exploring, a land value tax is one of them. Another one would be to put the squeeze on BTL landlords even more - although this has problems in that it may cause rents to rise.
The other problem, of course, is that people will never stop seeing houses as investments for as long as there remain few alternative options for the average joe. Pensions can (and have been) raided, the stock market is risky as hell, and there's no financial incentive to keep money in a savings account as long as interest rates remain where they are.
Few things, averaged out over a 25 year investment, are "as safe as houses".
Much of the rest of your post I agree with, in particular I'd aim to get interest rates back up to 5% as soon as practically possible.0 -
-
@tnewtondunn: Top fact of the day from @sajidjavid;Alistair said:What percentage of Britain do you think is currently built on?
"Twice a day, more of Britain gets covered by the incoming tide than is currently covered by buildings."0 -
I spoke too soon in identifying the most fuckwitted statistic in the world.Scott_P said:
@tnewtondunn: Top fact of the day from @sajidjavid;Alistair said:What percentage of Britain do you think is currently built on?
"Twice a day, more of Britain gets covered by the incoming tide than is currently covered by buildings."0 -
Much of this entire debate is down to effective zero interest rates for a decade. Raise them in a not breakneck but sustained way and values will go down. Some will suffer negative equity, but it strikes me as the lesser of evil choices. It will also largely solve (for a while) the current pensions crisis which is too just too hard and out of sight for many to grasp sadly, but is also a huge huge issue.Pong said:
Right now, how on earth is a couple on an average wage supposed to afford the average house without a) a substantial inheritance and b) bankrupting themselves if rates rise, or house prices subsequently fall even a moderate amount?MikeL said:
Even on a £200k house that would be £6k per year - miles more than Council Tax.Pong said:
A rather interesting suggestion (on EdM's podcast) for an initial implementation of LVT is to allow for voluntary valuations.kyf_100 said:
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
eg, set the rate at 3%/year - then allow whoever owns the land to value it, annually, at whatever level they want - and then pay 3% of that value.
To disincentivise pisstaking, the government/councils/housing associations etc can purchase the land at the declared value.
How on earth is someone in a modest (in many parts of the country) £200k house suddenly going to find approx an extra £5k per year?
Anyway, 3% was a random rate I used for my example. It could be 1.82% or 2.37% or 5%. In reality, land/property values would gradually fall over a few years, post-implementation. It would probably make sense to roll other property taxes into a single LVT (council tax, stamp duty etc) - and perhaps even fund the dementia tax/social care costs from it.
The rate and other details would all be up for discussion.
The main benefit would be that your kids would be able to afford to live near where they work and not have to rely on you popping off before they can get an inheritance - and enough stability to start a family if they choose.0 -
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/931201447437279237
Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.0 -
The problem we have is that decades of property/land prices rising faster than wages was never the win-win situation the rightwing press pretended it was - after netting off wage inflation, almost all of the gain was a zero-sum transfer to existing property/land owners from non-property owners & not-yet-property owners - pretty much all of the solutions for solving the problem involve reversing that wealth transfer.MikeL said:
That's all absolutely fine.Pong said:
Right now, how on earth is a couple on an average wage supposed to afford the average house without a) a substantial inheritance and b) bankrupting themselves if rates rise, or house prices subsequently fall even a moderate amount?MikeL said:
Even on a £200k house that would be £6k per year - miles more than Council Tax.Pong said:
A rather interesting suggestion (on EdM's podcast) for an initial implementation of LVT is to allow for voluntary valuations.kyf_100 said:
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
eg, set the rate at 3%/year - then allow whoever owns the land to value it, annually, at whatever level they want - and then pay 3% of that value.
To disincentivise pisstaking, the government/councils/housing associations etc can purchase the land at the declared value.
How on earth is someone in a modest (in many parts of the country) £200k house suddenly going to find approx an extra £5k per year?
Anyway, 3% was a random rate I used for my example. It could be 1.82% or 2.37% or 5%. In reality, land/property values would gradually fall over a few years, post-implementation. It would probably make sense to roll other property taxes into a single LVT (council tax, stamp duty etc) - and perhaps even fund the dementia tax/social care costs from it.
The rate and other details would all be up for discussion.
The main benefit would be that your kids would be able to afford to live near where they work and not have to rely on you popping off before they can get an inheritance - and enough stability to start a family if they choose.
But it's not OK to place a completely unacceptable burden on existing home owners of modest means.
People rolling in it - fine, they can obviously cope.
But I don't think it's reasonable to place a huge tax increase on someone in an average job living in an average house.
IMO, an LVT, along with some strategic greenbelt bolloxing is the least painful/least unfair way to achieve the necessary rebalancing.0 -
-
Where were these chaps when Merkel was telling Cameron to get stuffed when he wanted concessions pre-referendum ?Scott_P said:@JeremyCliffe: Three former presidents of the BDI (main voice of German industry) will hold a press conference on Monday to call for an "exit from Brexit".
0 -
Perhaps "small" is the key word there. We weren't unhappy in a flat at first but when the kids get to toddler age and above a garden makes life much easier. Most parents I know would agree with that. There is also the issue that families with kids tend to be noisy which also makes flats far from ideal from the perspective of the neighbours. You might have a less charitable opinion of your neighbours if you lived below rather than above them. Also given your location and station in life I imagine you are hardly living in a downmarket development....were you living amongst families in a tower block in Dagenham I'm sure you may think differently.AlastairMeeks said:
Outside space does not need to be individual outside space.HHemmelig said:
Alastair Meeks (I'm guessing) does not know what it is like living in a flat with children and no outside space.kyf_100 said:
I think that AlastairMeeks quite sensibly suggested a few weeks ago that one thing we can do is switch away from building small sized semis with their tiny tufts of garden out front and back to medium density housing, four or five storeys high.HHemmelig said:
We can't change the fact that we are a very overcrowded island already which means that "building more houses" will always be little more than a meaningless politicians soundbite, unless we carpetbomb the greenbelt with hundreds of thousands of houses and essentially consign all green space in the home counties to history. Frustrating as it may be, there's nothing much we can do to get immigration back down to sustainable to 1990s levels whilever billions of newly-mobile people in the third world are prepared to do whatever it takes to get to the prosperous west.
Much of the rest of your post I agree with, in particular I'd aim to get interest rates back up to 5% as soon as practically possible.
I personally don't have a problem with immigration (though I understand why many working class people feel frustrated by declining living standards and wages), but I do think it needs to be sustainable. And right now there doesn't seem to be the political will to either build adequate housing stock for a growing population, or provide adequate healthcare and education provision for that rapid expansion. Quite simply something has to give - and as highly globalised as the world is, as an island nation we always have the option of not letting quite so many people in.
Narrow 3/4 storey town houses are a good compromise for families though. I love mine though you need to get used to the stairs.
My downstairs neighbours have two small children in a flat with no outside space. They seem very happy.0 -
Hammond has zero support - he could easily be fired.anothernick said:
She can't. Her position is too weak. And what would be the point? Can you name a reshuffle that has changed a government's political fortunes?RobD said:
The plan to reshuffle him after the budget is utterly moronic. May had two opportunities for a full reshuffle and she didn’t take them.SandyRentool said:
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:
0 -
And how are they going to arrange thatTGOHF said:
Where were these chaps when Merkel was telling Cameron to get stuffed when he wanted concessions pre-referendum ?Scott_P said:@JeremyCliffe: Three former presidents of the BDI (main voice of German industry) will hold a press conference on Monday to call for an "exit from Brexit".
0 -
That might be right, though. At one time, the RAF's largest base was also, twice a day, it's smallest, in terms of land surface.Ishmael_Z said:
I spoke too soon in identifying the most fuckwitted statistic in the world.Scott_P said:
@tnewtondunn: Top fact of the day from @sajidjavid;Alistair said:What percentage of Britain do you think is currently built on?
"Twice a day, more of Britain gets covered by the incoming tide than is currently covered by buildings."0 -
If you are a German manufacturer and the whole system us rigged in your favour then yes. Otherwise not so much.williamglenn said:
Why do they think the solution is no Brexit? Could it be that they think there is value in the single market and the political institutions of Europe?Mortimer said:More seriously, sounds like some in Europe have woken up to the size of our market.
0 -
Undoubtedly. For a parent of say 4-14 year olds nothing is more precious than enough garden to put a 14' trampoline in.HHemmelig said:
Perhaps "small" is the key word there. We weren't unhappy in a flat at first but when the kids get to toddler age and above a garden makes life much easier. Most parents I know would agree with that. There is also the issue that families with kids tend to be noisy which also makes flats far from ideal from the perspective of the neighbours. You might have a less charitable opinion of your neighbours if you lived below rather than above them. Also given your location and station in life I imagine you are hardly living in a downmarket development....were you living amongst families in a tower block in Dagenham I'm sure you may think differently.0 -
As I have just said he worries me intensely and I have little confidence that he will get his budget right.TGOHF said:
Hammond has zero support - he could easily be fired.anothernick said:
She can't. Her position is too weak. And what would be the point? Can you name a reshuffle that has changed a government's political fortunes?RobD said:
The plan to reshuffle him after the budget is utterly moronic. May had two opportunities for a full reshuffle and she didn’t take them.SandyRentool said:
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:
Thinking of reducing VAT registration to £20,000 and saying there are no simple solutions to the housing crisis indicates he is politically clueless.
And it is not a remain v leave issue for me. I have no problem with a remain supporting chancellor
I hope I am proved wrong0 -
Fine, but most of that increase happened before the welfare state. I could have been persuaded to vote stay in the EU had Cameron and Osborne put forward a big scaling back of the welfare state. That is, you can have as much immigration as you like, so long as my taxes aren't spent on housing benefit.AlastairMeeks said:In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000.
In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so.
In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million.
In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million.
In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.0 -
Anyone with a trampoline in their garden should be taken out and shot.Ishmael_Z said:
Undoubtedly. For a parent of say 4-14 year olds nothing is more precious than enough garden to put a 14' trampoline in.HHemmelig said:
Perhaps "small" is the key word there. We weren't unhappy in a flat at first but when the kids get to toddler age and above a garden makes life much easier. Most parents I know would agree with that. There is also the issue that families with kids tend to be noisy which also makes flats far from ideal from the perspective of the neighbours. You might have a less charitable opinion of your neighbours if you lived below rather than above them. Also given your location and station in life I imagine you are hardly living in a downmarket development....were you living amongst families in a tower block in Dagenham I'm sure you may think differently.
Almost as bad as a caravan on the drive.
But not as bad as a Ford Cortina on bricks in the front garden.0 -
May's decision to make ECJ jurisdiction a red line is particularly unforgivable -- something that the average Leave voter didn't give two hoots about, and which as the thread says has made reaching a compromise in negotiations much harder than it needed to be, but which May decided on simply because she liked having her tummy tickled by Tory MPs and the right-wing press.Scott_P said:0 -
His last budget was tripe and was the start of the descent into the GE fiasco.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As I have just said he worries me intensely and I have little confidence that he will get his budget right.TGOHF said:
Hammond has zero support - he could easily be fired.anothernick said:
She can't. Her position is too weak. And what would be the point? Can you name a reshuffle that has changed a government's political fortunes?RobD said:
The plan to reshuffle him after the budget is utterly moronic. May had two opportunities for a full reshuffle and she didn’t take them.SandyRentool said:
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:
Thinking of reducing VAT registration to £20,000 and saying there are no simple solutions to the housing crisis indicates he is politically clueless.
And it is not a remain v leave issue for me. I have no problem with a remain supporting chancellor
I hope I am proved wrong
0 -
ExactlyTGOHF said:
His last budget was tripe and was the start of the descent into the GE fiasco.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As I have just said he worries me intensely and I have little confidence that he will get his budget right.TGOHF said:
Hammond has zero support - he could easily be fired.anothernick said:
She can't. Her position is too weak. And what would be the point? Can you name a reshuffle that has changed a government's political fortunes?RobD said:
The plan to reshuffle him after the budget is utterly moronic. May had two opportunities for a full reshuffle and she didn’t take them.SandyRentool said:
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:
Thinking of reducing VAT registration to £20,000 and saying there are no simple solutions to the housing crisis indicates he is politically clueless.
And it is not a remain v leave issue for me. I have no problem with a remain supporting chancellor
I hope I am proved wrong0 -
Leave voters voted first and foremost on a slogan "Take back control". If we were still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ then how would we have taken back control? Whether voters care or not it is what they explicitly voted for.Danny565 said:
May's decision to make ECJ jurisdiction a red line is particularly unforgivable -- something that the average Leave voter didn't give two hoots about, and which as the thread says has made reaching a compromise in negotiations much harder, but which May decided on simply because she liked having her tummy tickled by the right-wing press.Scott_P said:0 -
Under your scenario the immigrants would still flood in, but would be living in shanty towns and in shop doorways instead of houses. I'd rather pay housing benefit than have that happen in my country. Rough sleeping is already massively worse than a few years ago, as anyone living/working around London can see on a daily basis.tlg86 said:
Fine, but most of that increase happened before the welfare state. I could have been persuaded to vote stay in the EU had Cameron and Osborne put forward a big scaling back of the welfare state. That is, you can have as much immigration as you like, so long as my taxes aren't spent on housing benefit.AlastairMeeks said:In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000.
In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so.
In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million.
In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million.
In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.0 -
There's always been a contingent of Brexiteers who subconsciously crave the humiliation of defeat at the hands of the EU so that they can then accept our membership as the natural order of things by right of conquest.JonathanD said:Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.
0 -
I do not agree. Leave was won by taking back control of our borders, money and laws.Danny565 said:
May's decision to make ECJ jurisdiction a red line is particularly unforgivable -- something that the average Leave voter didn't give two hoots about, and which as the thread says has made reaching a compromise in negotiations much harder than it needed to be, but which May decided on simply because she liked having her tummy tickled by Tory MPs and the right-wing press.Scott_P said:
UK out of the EU cannot allow a third party justice system any say in it's affairs and I expect the vast majority would agree
And before you lock me in with the so called right wing press I voted remain and am in the centre of the conservative party0 -
I take it the patter of tiny Rentool feet is not yet a thing, then. It's a great mind-changer.SandyRentool said:
Anyone with a trampoline in their garden should be taken out and shot.Ishmael_Z said:
Undoubtedly. For a parent of say 4-14 year olds nothing is more precious than enough garden to put a 14' trampoline in.HHemmelig said:
Perhaps "small" is the key word there. We weren't unhappy in a flat at first but when the kids get to toddler age and above a garden makes life much easier. Most parents I know would agree with that. There is also the issue that families with kids tend to be noisy which also makes flats far from ideal from the perspective of the neighbours. You might have a less charitable opinion of your neighbours if you lived below rather than above them. Also given your location and station in life I imagine you are hardly living in a downmarket development....were you living amongst families in a tower block in Dagenham I'm sure you may think differently.
Almost as bad as a caravan on the drive.
But not as bad as a Ford Cortina on bricks in the front garden.0 -
Typical Scots Presbyterian anti-fun attitude...SandyRentool said:
Anyone with a trampoline in their garden should be taken out and shot.Ishmael_Z said:
Undoubtedly. For a parent of say 4-14 year olds nothing is more precious than enough garden to put a 14' trampoline in.HHemmelig said:
Perhaps "small" is the key word there. We weren't unhappy in a flat at first but when the kids get to toddler age and above a garden makes life much easier. Most parents I know would agree with that. There is also the issue that families with kids tend to be noisy which also makes flats far from ideal from the perspective of the neighbours. You might have a less charitable opinion of your neighbours if you lived below rather than above them. Also given your location and station in life I imagine you are hardly living in a downmarket development....were you living amongst families in a tower block in Dagenham I'm sure you may think differently.
Almost as bad as a caravan on the drive.
But not as bad as a Ford Cortina on bricks in the front garden.0 -
I would argue that the way most people interpreted "Take back control" was as a specific reference to "take back control over immigration / our borders". As this helps prove:Philip_Thompson said:
Leave voters voted first and foremost on a slogan "Take back control". If we were still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ then how would we have taken back control? Whether voters care or not it is what they explicitly voted for.Danny565 said:
May's decision to make ECJ jurisdiction a red line is particularly unforgivable -- something that the average Leave voter didn't give two hoots about, and which as the thread says has made reaching a compromise in negotiations much harder, but which May decided on simply because she liked having her tummy tickled by the right-wing press.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/smsullivan_/status/930073264197718016
The ECJ just wasn't a factor - I would guess a lot of Leave voters would never have even heard of it, and even some of those who did would probably mistake it for the Court of Human Rights. There was no democratic necessity at all to make it a red line (whereas it probably was a democratic necessity to make some kind of immigration reform a red line). The ECJ red-line was only a necessity for the Tories' internal purposes.0 -
WTO rules it is then! Oh...Big_G_NorthWales said:I do not agree. Leave was won by taking back control of our borders, money and laws.
UK out of the EU cannot allow a third party justice system any say in it's affairs and I expect the vast majority would agree
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-wto/wto-orders-brazil-to-remove-subsidies-government-to-appeal-idUSKCN1B92QV
The World Trade Organization on Wednesday gave Brazil 90 days to withdraw several industrial stimulus programs, supporting complaints of unfair competition by Japan and the European Union, a decision the government will appeal.0 -
So we're paying massive housing benefits in London and still have rough sleepers (I wonder why it's increased so much in the last few year's, btw?)HHemmelig said:
Under your scenario the immigrants would still flood in, but would be living in shanty towns and in shop doorways instead of houses. I'd rather pay housing benefit than have that happen in my country. Rough sleeping is already massively worse than a few years ago, as anyone living/working around London can see on a daily basis.tlg86 said:
Fine, but most of that increase happened before the welfare state. I could have been persuaded to vote stay in the EU had Cameron and Osborne put forward a big scaling back of the welfare state. That is, you can have as much immigration as you like, so long as my taxes aren't spent on housing benefit.AlastairMeeks said:In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000.
In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so.
In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million.
In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million.
In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.0 -
A Chancellor who supported Remain is not a problem. A Chancellor who still supports it, and acts accordingly, is a big big problem.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As I have just said he worries me intensely and I have little confidence that he will get his budget right.TGOHF said:
Hammond has zero support - he could easily be fired.anothernick said:
She can't. Her position is too weak. And what would be the point? Can you name a reshuffle that has changed a government's political fortunes?RobD said:
The plan to reshuffle him after the budget is utterly moronic. May had two opportunities for a full reshuffle and she didn’t take them.SandyRentool said:
If Hammond is going to be sacked, he should resign the day before the budget and shred/delete all of his plans. Then the only option for his successor would be to borrow McDonnell's proposals...Scott_P said:
Thinking of reducing VAT registration to £20,000 and saying there are no simple solutions to the housing crisis indicates he is politically clueless.
And it is not a remain v leave issue for me. I have no problem with a remain supporting chancellor
I hope I am proved wrong0 -
Scrapping housing benefit might solve the housing crisis.tlg86 said:
So we're paying massive housing benefits in London and still have rough sleepers (I wonder why it's increased so much in the last few year's, btw?)HHemmelig said:
Under your scenario the immigrants would still flood in, but would be living in shanty towns and in shop doorways instead of houses. I'd rather pay housing benefit than have that happen in my country. Rough sleeping is already massively worse than a few years ago, as anyone living/working around London can see on a daily basis.tlg86 said:
Fine, but most of that increase happened before the welfare state. I could have been persuaded to vote stay in the EU had Cameron and Osborne put forward a big scaling back of the welfare state. That is, you can have as much immigration as you like, so long as my taxes aren't spent on housing benefit.AlastairMeeks said:In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000.
In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so.
In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million.
In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million.
In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.
0
