The first is that I paid a simply gargantuan amount of stamp duty when I bought my house three years ago. But Charles’s proposal (essentially a rebate) may deal with that.
The second is that the idea is the central govt scoops most of this up. It is therefore a massive and terrifying siphoning of money from already debilitated and impoverished local authorities into central government.
Local authorities are very bad at collecting money - centralising it would make sense
I don’t care about the collection. It’s the keeping of it that annoys me.
A local tax...which is kept 2/3 by central govt? Fuck off.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
In fairness Corbyn thinks the same thing, essentially, unless you believe his explanation that when he said, ina prepared statement, that claims were exagerrated, he did not mean claims were exagerrated.
Also, why would the EHRC fear a socialist government anyway?
The first is that I paid a simply gargantuan amount of stamp duty when I bought my house three years ago. But Charles’s proposal (essentially a rebate) may deal with that.
The second is that the idea is the central govt scoops most of this up. It is therefore a massive and terrifying siphoning of money from already debilitated and impoverished local authorities into central government.
Local authorities are very bad at collecting money - centralising it would make sense
I don’t care about the collection. It’s the keeping of it that annoys me.
A local tax...which is kept 2/3 by central govt? Fuck off.
Depends where you live, that isn't true in the Red Wall seats
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
The first is that I paid a simply gargantuan amount of stamp duty when I bought my house three years ago. But Charles’s proposal (essentially a rebate) may deal with that.
The second is that the idea is the central govt scoops most of this up. It is therefore a massive and terrifying siphoning of money from already debilitated and impoverished local authorities into central government.
I'm all for some stamp duty rebate as I bought about 3 years ago too
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
Hmmm.... hiding infection with a Notifiable Disease.... to the legal types - what penalties for that?
I cannot really claim that Monica Lennon has greatly impinged on my consciousness until now but I do see that she nominated and was an ally of Richard Leonard. Which is probably enough information to be going on with.
The first is that I paid a simply gargantuan amount of stamp duty when I bought my house three years ago. But Charles’s proposal (essentially a rebate) may deal with that.
The second is that the idea is the central govt scoops most of this up. It is therefore a massive and terrifying siphoning of money from already debilitated and impoverished local authorities into central government.
Local authorities are very bad at collecting money - centralising it would make sense
I don’t care about the collection. It’s the keeping of it that annoys me.
A local tax...which is kept 2/3 by central govt? Fuck off.
Depends where you live, that isn't true in the Red Wall seats
This tax is trying to be too clever.
Tax wealth, yes. Redistribute wealth regionally, yes. Make local taxes more progressive, yes.
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
I live in Scotland so not applicable, but it would be better than halved on my band C ex-housing association 3-bed terrace.
You can tell almost immediately where the winners and losers live.
I am always surprised how “provincial” PB is.
We London dwellers are a minority, despite powering the economy that pays for the rest of you to moan all day about Brexit, Scottish sub-samples, pineapple on pizza etc
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
Back to the vaccine - according to my wife (who is in the vulnerable group) - the GP told her that they have run out of over 80s to jab. So they are doing 70s now.
You make it sound like they are chasing down oldies with a dart gun....
Combine it with the Most Dangerous Game, and people could make it part of their daily exercise.
I cannot really claim that Monica Lennon has greatly impinged on my consciousness until now but I do see that she nominated and was an ally of Richard Leonard. Which is probably enough information to be going on with.
The quickest of scrolls through her Twitter feed tells me she is not a serious candidate.
(Or, perhaps, not a candidate if SLAB are serious).
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
The headteacher has already made a highly inappropriate request of your sister. In principle there should be a escalation process for dealing with this. Maybe there is someone in the school management she trusts she can have a private word with to sort it out, so she doesn't have to escalate?
Not just inappropriate; highly irresponsible.
That head should be sacked without more ado, I think.
If what is reported is true. And I have no reason to doubt it.
Back to the vaccine - according to my wife (who is in the vulnerable group) - the GP told her that they have run out of over 80s to jab. So they are doing 70s now.
You make it sound like they are chasing down oldies with a dart gun....
Combine it with the Most Dangerous Game, and people could make it part of their daily exercise.
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
What work does she need to do that can be done from home. Granted she may need some papers but they an be collected and delivered to her in isolation at home.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
The streets are quiet. The parks are heaving, though. There’s nowhere else to go.
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Or Blair. Or Atlee.
Possibly brighter than Callaghan although I heard Callaghan explaining what was going on at the time of Black Wednesday and he was spot on. Not as bright as Foot although more grounded in reality. Brighter than Ed? Really not sure about that either. Everyone down to my daughter's cat is brighter than Corbyn of course.
Callaghan was not very bright though - certainly nowhere near the calibre of Wilson, Healey, Jenkins, Shore, Crosland , Jay or Crossman.He was a very poor party leader who showed disastrous judgement on several crucial issue - particularly re- election timing and his own retirement from the leadership.
He was hemmed in by the conditions of the Lib Lab Pact - don´t you remember? They agreed to have a period between the ending of the pact and the calling of the election. Callaghan was a thoroughly decent man, and kept to his word.
The period of the Lib-Lab Pact was in fact a time of very good government. It kept the government of the country going, with nothing too extreme, since its policies had to be approved by the Liberals beforehand - and it had the added benefit of keeping the hoards of baying Thatcherites off for a few more months.
The real problem was that the Callaghan Government was scuppered by the Bennite Socialists and their friends in the trade unions - that was the Winter of Discontent - who were furious that the Labour Government was not as extreme Socialist as they were themselves.
I am sorry but you are being far too generous to Callaghan. I do remember the Lib-Lab Pact - indeed I was a Labour PPC at the time! The Pact ended in early Autumn 1978 - which was when he was widely expected to call an election.His failure to do so - and his determination to enforce a 5% Incomes Policy after three years of pay restraint - resulted in his Government having to face the agony of the Winter of Discontent in January and February 1979. In March that year , he should have announced an election to be held on 7th June and effectively scuppered Thatcher's plans to rally the SNP and Liberals in a No Confidence Vote. Following his clear electoral defeat in May 1979, he remained Opposition Leader for 18 months - and effectively destroyed Healey's chances of succeeding him. I have to say that I have never forgiven him.
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Wilson was perhaps the brightest person ever to lead a political party in this country.
Back to the vaccine - according to my wife (who is in the vulnerable group) - the GP told her that they have run out of over 80s to jab. So they are doing 70s now.
Someone posted a comment yesterday that in their area — Dover I think — they hadn't started vaccinating anyone. There seems to be more variation than you'd expect, assuming that report was correct.
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
It's a no-brainer. @Gadfly's sister just lists the Head as a contact if they have been in contact.
There can be no 'consequences', as I'm sure the Head knows.
Not entirely fully up to speed on all today's excellent discussion on Stamp Duty et al. However, has anybody yet discussed Capital Gains Tax exemption for main residence?
There would be issues around exposing all gains to CGT, especially where somebody who bought a house 20 years ago would be no longer able to buy something similar - and would force downsizing. But there could be sliding scales, there could be a modest rate in the first five years, so little more than stamp duty.
Should people have a reasonable expectation to keep 100% of the gain on their primary residence? I'm not entirely convinced they should. They have sat in it and watched the value rise over time. If it were shares they had bought, that would not apply. Is it time to think the unthinkable - and tax gains on houses?
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
Possibly or possibly not. If a lot of people use wfh to move out of the london rat race which seems like a possibility will they still want to come if there are less jobs in london because the number of hospitality jobs is less. The londophiles do keep telling us its one of the attractions of coming here to work
One of Trumps last moves is to install one of his loyalists as the chief lawyer at the National Security Agency, a move that happened this weekend. This is not the first such move late on to put people into positions of influence within the Intelligence agencies.
He fears what these agencies know, and he is right because they have stuff on him and his overseas contacts going back a long way which could do him damage, so an inside man in such a post might be useful even with days to go.
And before anyone says that the move can be reversed, this wouldn't be done if the person couldn't do something even within a limited time frame.
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
I think you 'win' - I'd be close to a tripling.
Look on the bright side though: a policy that would make even me question the value of voting Conservative is not all that likely to happen.
Would you change your name to FadedBlue?
I'd go back to blueblue - the name I took the day May dropped her Dementia Tax bombshell and my stomach knotted something awful.
I'd prefer not to have to return to that.
I respected her for that proposal. She was at least trying to address the problem not just say there is a problem that needs a solution. And she must have known it would be unpopular (though not as much as it was) and included it anyway.
It was an excellent policy. Too good in fact for the Tories. They didn't deserve it.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Not really
I earn ~£50k
I and others on my wage can and should pay more tax.
The better off, of which I am one, are very fortunate and at a time like this should be asked to pay much more.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
Ballpark a 0.5% annual tax will result in a 10-15% fall in house prices.
This will be offset by elimination of stamp duty but it only gets up to that for the richest (paying 12%)
Ergo the rich benefit from this tax change 🤔
So anyone saving up to buy a house no longer needs to pay Council Tax, doesn't pay SDLT and needs a 10% smaller deposit? Sounds like a win/win/win. That sounds too good to be true.
Prices go up to compensate for reduced SDLT and banks reduce the amount they are willing to lend to compensate for fixed charge on income
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
Though I imagine a fairly high proportion will be young Europeans who did fairly junior and poorly-paid work in London, because it is a cool place to be and there was Freedom of Movement.
Will they, or their successors, be able to return even if they wanted to?
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Well, in this context, people who own more rather than those who earn more.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
The streets are quiet. The parks are heaving, though. There’s nowhere else to go.
Yes the parks were pretty busy, but I doubt they were a significant Covid risk. Easy to keep at least 2m apart, and being outside and on the move helps too. Some very nice views of the city from Dawson's Hill on the way back.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
I live in Scotland so not applicable, but it would be better than halved on my band C ex-housing association 3-bed terrace.
You can tell almost immediately where the winners and losers live.
I am always surprised how “provincial” PB is.
We London dwellers are a minority, despite powering the economy that pays for the rest of you to moan all day about Brexit, Scottish sub-samples, pineapple on pizza etc
Why surprised? London is only about 15% of the population of England.
Those opposed to the scheme need to come back with an alternative that resolves these 2 issues:
1) We have a massive financial deficit, and people want even more spent.
2) A promise and need to reverse the geographic and generational inequality in the country.
Now personally, I expect that the Tory promise to level up the North and Midlands is just cant. Assume though for the sake of debate that it is not.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Well I tend to from my no doubt blinkered prole outlook class it as anyone that has the luxury of owning their own home, especially in London. While many will claim its paper only the fact remains they could sell up and buy a practically similar house in another part of the country and pocket a nice wodge of that "paper only" profit. Many do so on retirement
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Wilson was perhaps the brightest person ever to lead a political party in this country.
Possibly - though Asquith and Gladstone were also pretty bright. Wilson also did fail twice in the All Souls exam - unlike Keith Joseph, Brian Walden and - cough! Cough! - John Redwood.
The first is that I paid a simply gargantuan amount of stamp duty when I bought my house three years ago. But Charles’s proposal (essentially a rebate) may deal with that.
The second is that the idea is the central govt scoops most of this up. It is therefore a massive and terrifying siphoning of money from already debilitated and impoverished local authorities into central government.
Local authorities are very bad at collecting money - centralising it would make sense
I don’t care about the collection. It’s the keeping of it that annoys me.
A local tax...which is kept 2/3 by central govt? Fuck off.
Depends where you live, that isn't true in the Red Wall seats
This tax is trying to be too clever.
Tax wealth, yes. Redistribute wealth regionally, yes. Make local taxes more progressive, yes.
Try to do it all at once and it’s a car crash.
Nope it's trying to fix the political nightmare that is the council tax while on the quiet introducing a wealth taxes.
Not entirely fully up to speed on all today's excellent discussion on Stamp Duty et al. However, has anybody yet discussed Capital Gains Tax exemption for main residence?
There would be issues around exposing all gains to CGT, especially where somebody who bought a house 20 years ago would be no longer able to buy something similar - and would force downsizing. But there could be sliding scales, there could be a modest rate in the first five years, so little more than stamp duty.
Should people have a reasonable expectation to keep 100% of the gain on their primary residence? I'm not entirely convinced they should. They have sat in it and watched the value rise over time. If it were shares they had bought, that would not apply. Is it time to think the unthinkable - and tax gains on houses?
You don't need to have shares. You do need somewhere to live, so selling your primary residence is usually done at the same time as buying another. The effect of charging capital gains tax at that point would be to make it much harder to move house to a new job, and much less desirable to downsize. This would make the housing stock even more inefficient than it is at the moment.
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Wilson was perhaps the brightest person ever to lead a political party in this country.
Possibly - though Asquith and Gladstone were also pretty bright.
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Fill in the list honestly. Tell as many people as possible in the school that the list was filled in honestly, and she did so for the sake of the health of everyone in the school, pupils and staff.
The head will be angry, but it will be very hard for the head to enact any substantial retribution, as everyone will know that your sister has done the right thing, including the head.
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
I live in Scotland so not applicable, but it would be better than halved on my band C ex-housing association 3-bed terrace.
You can tell almost immediately where the winners and losers live.
I am always surprised how “provincial” PB is.
We London dwellers are a minority, despite powering the economy that pays for the rest of you to moan all day about Brexit, Scottish sub-samples, pineapple on pizza etc
Why surprised? London is only about 15% of the population of England.
Those opposed to the scheme need to come back with an alternative that resolves these 2 issues:
1) We have a massive financial deficit, and people want even more spent.
2) A promise and need to reverse the geographic and generational inequality in the country.
Now personally, I expect that the Tory promise to level up the North and Midlands is just cant. Assume though for the sake of debate that it is not.
Despite costing me an arm and a leg, I don’t utterly hate the proposal.
I would flip the percentages so that the local authority keeps 2/3.
And on the remaining third, I would taper it according to age. Pay nothing if you are under 40, rising at 0.01% with each year.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Not really
I earn ~£50k
I and others on my wage can and should pay more tax.
The better off, of which I am one, are very fortunate and at a time like this should be asked to pay much more.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
I lived by Sydenham Woods for a while, off College Road. All three species of woodpecker and an albino squirrel.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Rich people and those owning expensive properties should pay more tax. I say this as a rich person who owns an expensive property. I think I've been criticised on here for taking that position in the past.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Not really
I earn ~£50k
I and others on my wage can and should pay more tax.
The better off, of which I am one, are very fortunate and at a time like this should be asked to pay much more.
Everyone is going to have to pay more tax. The wealthiest should see the biggest increase.
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Wilson was perhaps the brightest person ever to lead a political party in this country.
Possibly - though Asquith and Gladstone were also pretty bright.
Attlee?
Not at all. He was no academic high flyer - indeed it has to be doubtful whether in todays world that he would have gained a place at Oxford at all!
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
Have you been to primrose hill recently. That is in no way “calmer”
I cannot really claim that Monica Lennon has greatly impinged on my consciousness until now but I do see that she nominated and was an ally of Richard Leonard. Which is probably enough information to be going on with.
The quickest of scrolls through her Twitter feed tells me she is not a serious candidate.
(Or, perhaps, not a candidate if SLAB are serious).
There is a hypothesis in that proposition that needs further consideration.
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
I live in Scotland so not applicable, but it would be better than halved on my band C ex-housing association 3-bed terrace.
You can tell almost immediately where the winners and losers live.
I am always surprised how “provincial” PB is.
We London dwellers are a minority, despite powering the economy that pays for the rest of you to moan all day about Brexit, Scottish sub-samples, pineapple on pizza etc
Why surprised? London is only about 15% of the population of England.
Those opposed to the scheme need to come back with an alternative that resolves these 2 issues:
1) We have a massive financial deficit, and people want even more spent.
2) A promise and need to reverse the geographic and generational inequality in the country.
Now personally, I expect that the Tory promise to level up the North and Midlands is just cant. Assume though for the sake of debate that it is not.
Despite costing me an arm and a leg, I don’t utterly hate the proposal.
I would flip the percentages so that the local authority keeps 2/3.
And on the remaining third, I would taper it according to age. Pay nothing if you are under 40, rising at 0.01% with each year.
So you want your council to have £xm while councils up north have £x/2m or even £x/3m.
Central government will need to distribute the money unless you want Essex twinned with Tyneside.
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Fill in the list honestly. Tell as many people as possible in the school that the list was filled in honestly, and she did so for the sake of the health of everyone in the school, pupils and staff.
The head will be angry, but it will be very hard for the head to enact any substantial retribution, as everyone will know that your sister has done the right thing, including the head.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
The streets are quiet. The parks are heaving, though. There’s nowhere else to go.
Try living in the North. We've got real countryside.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
I lived by Sydenham Woods for a while, off College Road. All three species of woodpecker and an albino squirrel.
That's Dulwich for you. So white even the squirrels are white. Sydenham Woods was amazingly muddy today.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
The streets are quiet. The parks are heaving, though. There’s nowhere else to go.
Try living in the North. We've got real countryside.
And no "housing crisis".
One of the best bits about Covid, and soon as our company confirms the office is never coming back I can move somewhere I can afford to live
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
I live in Scotland so not applicable, but it would be better than halved on my band C ex-housing association 3-bed terrace.
You can tell almost immediately where the winners and losers live.
I am always surprised how “provincial” PB is.
We London dwellers are a minority, despite powering the economy that pays for the rest of you to moan all day about Brexit, Scottish sub-samples, pineapple on pizza etc
Why surprised? London is only about 15% of the population of England.
Those opposed to the scheme need to come back with an alternative that resolves these 2 issues:
1) We have a massive financial deficit, and people want even more spent.
2) A promise and need to reverse the geographic and generational inequality in the country.
Now personally, I expect that the Tory promise to level up the North and Midlands is just cant. Assume though for the sake of debate that it is not.
Despite costing me an arm and a leg, I don’t utterly hate the proposal.
I would flip the percentages so that the local authority keeps 2/3.
And on the remaining third, I would taper it according to age. Pay nothing if you are under 40, rising at 0.01% with each year.
So you want your council to have £xm while councils up north have £x/2m or even £x/3m.
Central government will need to distribute the money unless you want Essex twinned with Tyneside.
Hmm. Perhaps you are right. But I don’t like the idea even of Sunderland relying on “the government” for something like 70, 80% of its funding.
Not entirely fully up to speed on all today's excellent discussion on Stamp Duty et al. However, has anybody yet discussed Capital Gains Tax exemption for main residence?
There would be issues around exposing all gains to CGT, especially where somebody who bought a house 20 years ago would be no longer able to buy something similar - and would force downsizing. But there could be sliding scales, there could be a modest rate in the first five years, so little more than stamp duty.
Should people have a reasonable expectation to keep 100% of the gain on their primary residence? I'm not entirely convinced they should. They have sat in it and watched the value rise over time. If it were shares they had bought, that would not apply. Is it time to think the unthinkable - and tax gains on houses?
You don't need to have shares. You do need somewhere to live, so selling your primary residence is usually done at the same time as buying another. The effect of charging capital gains tax at that point would be to make it much harder to move house to a new job, and much less desirable to downsize. This would make the housing stock even more inefficient than it is at the moment.
You don't have to buy. You can rent. (You could hammer the rental market with extra taxes, if you were so minded.)
If the level is pitched right, it shouldn't make it more onerous to move house than having to pay stamp duty.
It just strikes me as one of the great political taboos. Oh no, you can't tax gains on your main home. No no no no no.... And the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph would predictably explode in rage. (The Daily Express having already spontneously combusted by this point.) But would it really be much worse than now? if 7.5% of the gain?
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
It's a no-brainer. @Gadfly's sister just lists the Head as a contact if they have been in contact.
There can be no 'consequences', as I'm sure the Head knows.
Thanks for all the responses.
Prior to her positive results, my sister received a negative lateral flow result at school of Friday morning, which led to the Head arguing that my sister cannot have been positive at the time. Clearly this is incorrect, but it raised doubts in my sister's minds.
The contact form asks my sister to list everybody she met in the 48 hours prior to developing symptoms, and that is what she has now done.
Treat London, including TfL exactly the same as the rest of the nation for investment and taxation to recover from C-19 and loads of the unequal ways the country operates will be exposed.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
'Twas ever thus. No one believes that they are The Man. Since the age of the financial qualification for the Senate. Of Rome.....
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
The streets are quiet. The parks are heaving, though. There’s nowhere else to go.
Try living in the North. We've got real countryside.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
It would depend entirely on where the bands were re-drawn. Based on 1991 valuations as they were, the top Band, Band H, kicked in for all properties over £320,000.
Many have argued for more higher rate bands to take into account the greater range in house prices - if you set the highest band at £500k for example, a house worth £2 million would pay the same. The median (Band D) was set at £160,000 in 1991 - it's now £245,000 so you'd have to adjust the bands accordingly and perhaps create two or three additional bands at the top to pick up the most expensive properties and charge them accordingly.
My point was the number of houses has t changed and the amount raised hasn’t changed. If you add extra bands that’s different to just revaluing
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Not really
I earn ~£50k
I and others on my wage can and should pay more tax.
The better off, of which I am one, are very fortunate and at a time like this should be asked to pay much more.
So what is stopping you?
When they revalued the houses for the Council tax in Wales a few years ago, It was obvious that more people's tax went up than went down. We were told that the excesses went into a fund to help the areas with less council tax income for the councils. In effect subsidising the poorer areas. As the council tax collected is less than half of all council funding anyway, I would have thought it just helped with government funding of councils.
The first is that I paid a simply gargantuan amount of stamp duty when I bought my house three years ago. But Charles’s proposal (essentially a rebate) may deal with that.
The second is that the idea is the central govt scoops most of this up. It is therefore a massive and terrifying siphoning of money from already debilitated and impoverished local authorities into central government.
Local authorities are very bad at collecting money - centralising it would make sense
I don’t care about the collection. It’s the keeping of it that annoys me.
A local tax...which is kept 2/3 by central govt? Fuck off.
It's not kept, it's redistributed between the councils. That way you avoid Westminster Council sitting on a huge pile of cash.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
The streets are quiet. The parks are heaving, though. There’s nowhere else to go.
Try living in the North. We've got real countryside.
And no "housing crisis".
There’s no good Brie, though.
There are Lidls in the north, who sell a decent Brie de Meaux. Better than in Waitrose, in fact.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
We went on a lovely 11km stroll through the parks and quiet streets of SE London down to Sydenham Woods this afternoon. Lots of families out and about enjoying the better weather. London is still great.
The streets are quiet. The parks are heaving, though. There’s nowhere else to go.
Try living in the North. We've got real countryside.
Treat London, including TfL exactly the same as the rest of the nation for investment and taxation to recover from C-19 and loads of the unequal ways the country operates will be exposed.
The only real way to level up, real equality.
Fine, then let's keep all the tax generated in London, in London. Idiot.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
'Twas ever thus. No one believes that they are The Man. Since the age of the financial qualification for the Senate. Of Rome.....
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
Reminds me of when I was working for a multinational in the early 90's they had a company news letter and one of the accountants wrote an article saying how poor he was because they had had to reduce eating at restaurants to 3 nights a week instead of 5 and 50k didnt go far with inflation these days. Most of us earning less than 12k a year. We did a collection for him via internal mail and most of the site chipped in a penny to help him out
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Not really
I earn ~£50k
I and others on my wage can and should pay more tax.
The better off, of which I am one, are very fortunate and at a time like this should be asked to pay much more.
So what is stopping you?
As teachers with no children, my wife and I paid a fortune in tax, NI and Pension for 30 years (and other jobs before). Now we are retired our income is down to approx 25%, so pay very little income tax now.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
'Twas ever thus. No one believes that they are The Man. Since the age of the financial qualification for the Senate. Of Rome.....
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
Well, having three children often means you have to cut down from six to five skiing trips per year. I'm waiting for Marcus to tweet about their plight but he had a match today. Perhaps tomorrow.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
Says the man who regularly flees the city the minute there’s a sniff of a lockdown.
Er, I'm here
Why is a humble flint knapper travelling to London during lockdown?
The first is that I paid a simply gargantuan amount of stamp duty when I bought my house three years ago. But Charles’s proposal (essentially a rebate) may deal with that.
The second is that the idea is the central govt scoops most of this up. It is therefore a massive and terrifying siphoning of money from already debilitated and impoverished local authorities into central government.
Local authorities are very bad at collecting money - centralising it would make sense
I don’t care about the collection. It’s the keeping of it that annoys me.
A local tax...which is kept 2/3 by central govt? Fuck off.
It's not kept, it's redistributed between the councils. That way you avoid Westminster Council sitting on a huge pile of cash.
Isn't it amazing countries like Switzerland, Germany and just about every other democratic country on the planet has managed to develop a system that allows for poorer areas of their countries to raise money locally whilst in the UK every penny goes to Whitehall for the provinces to beg to have a penny sent back.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
So basically cities become pleasanter if they reduce the effects of high population density.
Now that can be done by making people stay at home or by reducing the number of people.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
'Twas ever thus. No one believes that they are The Man. Since the age of the financial qualification for the Senate. Of Rome.....
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
Reminds me of when I was working for a multinational in the early 90's they had a company news letter and one of the accountants wrote an article saying how poor he was because they had had to reduce eating at restaurants to 3 nights a week instead of 5 and 50k didnt go far with inflation these days. Most of us earning less than 12k a year. We did a collection for him via internal mail and most of the site chipped in a penny to help him out
Not entirely fully up to speed on all today's excellent discussion on Stamp Duty et al. However, has anybody yet discussed Capital Gains Tax exemption for main residence?
There would be issues around exposing all gains to CGT, especially where somebody who bought a house 20 years ago would be no longer able to buy something similar - and would force downsizing. But there could be sliding scales, there could be a modest rate in the first five years, so little more than stamp duty.
Should people have a reasonable expectation to keep 100% of the gain on their primary residence? I'm not entirely convinced they should. They have sat in it and watched the value rise over time. If it were shares they had bought, that would not apply. Is it time to think the unthinkable - and tax gains on houses?
You don't need to have shares. You do need somewhere to live, so selling your primary residence is usually done at the same time as buying another. The effect of charging capital gains tax at that point would be to make it much harder to move house to a new job, and much less desirable to downsize. This would make the housing stock even more inefficient than it is at the moment.
You don't have to buy. You can rent. (You could hammer the rental market with extra taxes, if you were so minded.)
If the level is pitched right, it shouldn't make it more onerous to move house than having to pay stamp duty.
It just strikes me as one of the great political taboos. Oh no, you can't tax gains on your main home. No no no no no.... And the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph would predictably explode in rage. (The Daily Express having already spontneously combusted by this point.) But would it really be much worse than now? if 7.5% of the gain?
Just chucking it out there.
That is fair enough, but it becomes a "I wouldn't have started from here" problem given the number of people who are owner-occupiers. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is always seen as unfair, and house-ownership is a very long game...
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
This is getting out of hand. It is quite simple. Sister should name HT. Sister should tell HT there is no choice because of the risk of infecting hundreds of kids so HT will need to run tests via Zoom. There is no need to blackmail HT with the Daily Mail or the governors, and it is hard to see how this sort of escalation would not make a bad situation worse.
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
So basically cities become pleasanter if they reduce the effects of high population density.
Now that can be done by making people stay at home or by reducing the number of people.
Mmmm anyone who wants to reduce the number of people, please start with yourselves.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
The first is that I paid a simply gargantuan amount of stamp duty when I bought my house three years ago. But Charles’s proposal (essentially a rebate) may deal with that.
The second is that the idea is the central govt scoops most of this up. It is therefore a massive and terrifying siphoning of money from already debilitated and impoverished local authorities into central government.
I'm all for some stamp duty rebate as I bought about 3 years ago too
My proposal used to be 5 years but since I bought on April 1, 2016 I’ve decided that 10 years is fairer
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Not really
I earn ~£50k
I and others on my wage can and should pay more tax.
The better off, of which I am one, are very fortunate and at a time like this should be asked to pay much more.
So what is stopping you?
As teachers with no children, my wife and I paid a fortune in tax, NI and Pension for 30 years (and other jobs before). Now we are retired our income is down to approx 25%, so pay very little income tax now.
25% of your original income is ~£50k? Where did you teach?!
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
Though the way it works out is that millionaires don't pay tax at all. For the super rich, taxation is voluntary.
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
This is getting out of hand. It is quite simple. Sister should name HT. Sister should tell HT there is no choice because of the risk of infecting hundreds of kids so HT will need to run tests via Zoom. There is no need to blackmail HT with the Daily Mail or the governors, and it is hard to see how this sort of escalation would not make a bad situation worse.
I tag a rider on the end of that. Tell the HT that's wrong to pressure someone to lie like that at any time, but when they are ill and may be feeling a little frightened, it's inexcusable.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Whatever happens it's likely the UK population will overtake that of Germany where they've had more deaths than births every year since 1972.
Comments
It’s the keeping of it that annoys me.
A local tax...which is kept 2/3 by central govt?
Fuck off.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
Tax wealth, yes.
Redistribute wealth regionally, yes.
Make local taxes more progressive, yes.
Try to do it all at once and it’s a car crash.
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
(Or, perhaps, not a candidate if SLAB are serious).
If what is reported is true. And I have no reason to doubt it.
The parks are heaving, though.
There’s nowhere else to go.
Following his clear electoral defeat in May 1979, he remained Opposition Leader for 18 months - and effectively destroyed Healey's chances of succeeding him.
I have to say that I have never forgiven him.
There can be no 'consequences', as I'm sure the Head knows.
There would be issues around exposing all gains to CGT, especially where somebody who bought a house 20 years ago would be no longer able to buy something similar - and would force downsizing. But there could be sliding scales, there could be a modest rate in the first five years, so little more than stamp duty.
Should people have a reasonable expectation to keep 100% of the gain on their primary residence? I'm not entirely convinced they should. They have sat in it and watched the value rise over time. If it were shares they had bought, that would not apply. Is it time to think the unthinkable - and tax gains on houses?
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
He fears what these agencies know, and he is right because they have stuff on him and his overseas contacts going back a long way which could do him damage, so an inside man in such a post might be useful even with days to go.
And before anyone says that the move can be reversed, this wouldn't be done if the person couldn't do something even within a limited time frame.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
I earn ~£50k
I and others on my wage can and should pay more tax.
The better off, of which I am one, are very fortunate and at a time like this should be asked to pay much more.
Sounds like a lose/lose
Will they, or their successors, be able to return even if they wanted to?
He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT.
From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
Those opposed to the scheme need to come back with an alternative that resolves these 2 issues:
1) We have a massive financial deficit, and people want even more spent.
2) A promise and need to reverse the geographic and generational inequality in the country.
Now personally, I expect that the Tory promise to level up the North and Midlands is just cant. Assume though for the sake of debate that it is not.
Both things are essential
The head will be angry, but it will be very hard for the head to enact any substantial retribution, as everyone will know that your sister has done the right thing, including the head.
I would flip the percentages so that the local authority keeps 2/3.
And on the remaining third, I would taper it according to age. Pay nothing if you are under 40, rising at 0.01% with each year.
Central government will need to distribute the money unless you want Essex twinned with Tyneside.
And no "housing crisis".
Sydenham Woods was amazingly muddy today.
Perhaps you are right.
But I don’t like the idea even of Sunderland relying on “the government” for something like 70, 80% of its funding.
If the level is pitched right, it shouldn't make it more onerous to move house than having to pay stamp duty.
It just strikes me as one of the great political taboos. Oh no, you can't tax gains on your main home. No no no no no.... And the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph would predictably explode in rage. (The Daily Express having already spontneously combusted by this point.) But would it really be much worse than now? if 7.5% of the gain?
Just chucking it out there.
Prior to her positive results, my sister received a negative lateral flow result at school of Friday morning, which led to the Head arguing that my sister cannot have been positive at the time. Clearly this is incorrect, but it raised doubts in my sister's minds.
The contact form asks my sister to list everybody she met in the 48 hours prior to developing symptoms, and that is what she has now done.
The only real way to level up, real equality.
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
As part of the ancien regime, you’re a deserved target.
Now that can be done by making people stay at home or by reducing the number of people.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.