Two things we don’t yet know – politicalbetting.com

Malmesbury said:

IanB2 said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

ping said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

MattW said:

bigjohnowls said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLC8Rrd5ze4

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.

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

Ken Livingstone on how the EHRC report is a conspiracy to undermine socialism with false allegations of antisemitism...

https://twitter.com/derbychrisw/status/1350880572755873801?s=21

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.

Gardenwalker said:

I have two issues with this proposal.

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.

MarqueeMark said:

Gadfly said:

Any PB lawyers around?

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.

eek said:

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

Gardenwalker said:

I have two issues with this proposal.

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

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Malmesbury said:

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.

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

Anabobazina said:

FF43 said:

On topic (because no-one else is)...

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.

Nigelb said:

FF43 said:

Gadfly said:

Any PB lawyers around?

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.

MarqueeMark said:

Gadfly said:

Any PB lawyers around?

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.

Malmesbury said:

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.

MarqueeMark said:

Gadfly said:

Any PB lawyers around?

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.

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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

Anabobazina said:

PB.com has forecast 27 of the last zero London collapses.

kle4 said:

BluestBlue said:

kle4 said:

BluestBlue said:

Gardenwalker said:

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.

Andy_JS said:

Anabobazina said:

PB.com has forecast 27 of the last zero London collapses.

That's a success rate well in excess of 100%. Impressive.

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

Mortimer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MaxPB said:

MattW said:

Interesting.

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.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

Gardenwalker said:

I have two issues with this proposal.

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.

justin124 said:

kinabalu said:

justin124 said:

Omnium said:

DougSeal said:

Casino_Royale said:

Omnium said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

ManchesterKurt said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

ManchesterKurt said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

Anabobazina said:

FF43 said:

On topic (because no-one else is)...

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.

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Gardenwalker said:

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.

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

Anabobazina said:

FF43 said:

On topic (because no-one else is)...

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.

SandyRentool said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

Anabobazina said:

FF43 said:

On topic (because no-one else is)...

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".

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1350933878014431236?s=20

Fysics_Teacher said:

MarqueeMark said:

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.

SandyRentool said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

Anabobazina said:

FF43 said:

On topic (because no-one else is)...

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".

Fysics_Teacher said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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?

FF43 said:

Malmesbury said:

FF43 said:

Malmesbury said:

IanB2 said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

ping said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

MattW said:

bigjohnowls said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLC8Rrd5ze4

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.

Pulpstar said:

https://twitter.com/resi_analyst/status/1350354899146579968?s=09

Gardenwalker said:

SandyRentool said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

Anabobazina said:

FF43 said:

On topic (because no-one else is)...

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.

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.

Lucky you. I’d be 14x greater

Fysics_Teacher said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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?

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

Anabobazina said:

FF43 said:

On topic (because no-one else is)...

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

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

Anabobazina said:

FF43 said:

On topic (because no-one else is)...

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.

MarqueeMark said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

MarqueeMark said:

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.

another_richard said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

Anabobazina said:

FF43 said:

On topic (because no-one else is)...

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.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1350928710787096582

Daveyboy1961 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Pagan2 said:

Mary_Batty said:

Casino_Royale said:

Charles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MarqueeMark said:

Gadfly said:

Any PB lawyers around?

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.

FF43 said:

Malmesbury said:

FF43 said:

Malmesbury said:

FF43 said:

Malmesbury said:

IanB2 said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

ping said:

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

MattW said:

bigjohnowls said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLC8Rrd5ze4

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.