politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson on where LAB stands post confernence and his

Options
124»

Comments

  • Slackbladder
    Slackbladder Posts: 9,800
    not_on_fire said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
    Ah, so you want to get rid of the CGT exemption for primary residence sales? I could support that.
    So utterly collapse the housing market, and mean people just moving house without unlocking any of that 'profit' lose thousands?

    Good luck with that.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    Since Miliband's forgetfulness, Labour's lead has been 6%,4%,6%.

    Obviously, the Great British public are not PBTories and they do not read that hideous Blair arse licker John Rentoul.

    Those numbers aren't impressive for party conference week.
    So Tories will have higher leads during their conference ?
    I imagine that polling will show the Conservatives and Labour at level-pegging during the Conservatives' conference.

  • peter_from_putney
    peter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    O/T

    Just short of £4.5 million matched so far with the Mighty Machine in the early stages of The Ryder Cup, with the final tally likely to comfortably exceed the total wagered recently on the Scottish Indy Referendum.
    Happy days if like me you're a Betfair shareholder!
  • Plato
    Plato Posts: 15,724
    Mr @HurstLlama‌ Precisely. Thank you for articulating my point much more coherently than I did.
    HurstLlama said:


    David_Evershed said:


    Plato said:


    I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied?

    Cyclefree said:


    rottenborough said:

    NickPalmer said:

    The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.

    Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:

    Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.

    We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)

    [snip]

    All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.

    This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.

    The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.

    Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.

    The logic of Plato's view is that we should only pay for the local services which we use.

    So when we are young our parents should pay for the local school. When we are old and need care, we should pay for our own care.
    I think Miss P's point can be illustrated by a simple example I found when I was out trying to get people onto the electoral register. House A, is occupied by 5 earning adults, the parents and three grown up children who are all now working, their council tax bill is X. The identical house next door, House B, is occupied by a husband and wife couple, newly retired, their council tax bill is also X.

    House A, containing more people will, consume more local services but the cost per head is much lower than House B. The occupants of House B use less but, per head, pay more. Even accepting we must all chuck into the common pot, what we have is not an equitable solution.
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited September 2014
    not_on_fire said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
    Ah, so you want to get rid of the CGT exemption for primary residence sales? I could support that.
    No, since the primary residence is considered a home.

    Perhaps the 'lucky ones' like surbiton with more than one property should be paying their fair share? Second home owners seem like a better target.

  • taffys
    taffys Posts: 9,753
    Good luck with that.

    One day, a political party might hit upon the revolutionary idea of CUTTING taxes on property.

    You never know
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14
  • FalseFlag
    FalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    TheWatcher said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    Faced with crippling bills, 'ordinary families' will be moving elsewhere, selling up to the super rich from overseas who can cough up £10,000+ a year without blinking.

    Is that what Labour want, more of London occupied by wealthy foreigners?
    Could then be rented out to immigrants receiving housing benefit paid for by the owner forced from their home.
  • Flightpath
    Flightpath Posts: 4,012
    Socrates said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Gaius said:


    ...

    ... to.
    loans covered by the community reinvestment act were actually far, far better in terms of defaults than the loans not covered by it. This right-wing myth has been debunked so many times it's only the most ideologically blinkered that still believe it.
    Firstly the CRA was passed by Carter not Clinton. He just manipulated it to threaten lenders.

    And as for its consequences -
    ''Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?''
    ''Yes, it did. ... We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming. ''

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609

    and
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
    ''In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.''
    ''The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.''
    " - Weren’t the majority of the subprime loans made by mortgage service companies not subject to the CRA? -
    This is true. But it is largely beside the point. A huge driver of the demand for subprime loans was the demand for CRA bonds. Banks operating under the CRA could meet their obligations by buying up CRA loans or MBS built from CRA loans. The CRA created a demand that the mortgage servicers were meeting.
    What's more, many smaller mortage service companies hoped to be acquired by larger banks. Increasing their CRA lending made them more attractive take-over targets.
    A study put out by the Treasury Department in 2000 found that the CRA was encouraging the mortgage servicers to provide loans to low-income borrowers, in part because the CRA loans had been so successful.
    Finally, the Clinton adminstration threatened to subject the mortgage companies to the CRA if they didn't comply voluntarily. They promptly agreed to increase their CRA-type lending in order to escape the kind of public scrutiny that comes with official CRA regulated status.''

    It seems to me to be a bit naive to ignore the CRA, how it was used abused and manipulated.
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    Slackbladder said:

    not_on_fire said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
    Ah, so you want to get rid of the CGT exemption for primary residence sales? I could support that.
    So utterly collapse the housing market, and mean people just moving house without unlocking any of that 'profit' lose thousands?

    Good luck with that.
    That's the US system (I think). Massive impact on housing stock turnover and pushes people toward renting unless they know they're staying put for the next decade or more.
  • williamglenn
    williamglenn Posts: 56,290
    Slackbladder said:

    not_on_fire said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
    Ah, so you want to get rid of the CGT exemption for primary residence sales? I could support that.
    So utterly collapse the housing market, and mean people just moving house without unlocking any of that 'profit' lose thousands?

    Good luck with that.
    If it really did 'utterly collapse the housing market' then there would be no capital gain to tax and people could move house as much as they want without troubling the exchequer.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2014
    Frank Dobson, makes a good point - he's favourable to the motion and says, to paraphrase:

    'In other wars, women are raped and killed by accident. Isis use this as a tactic. - And if it were not for the bombing that has already taken place, Isis could have taken Baghdad already.'

    Edit - I'm following Sparrow's live coverage below - always very good imho.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/sep/26/mps-debate-and-vote-on-air-strikes-against-islamic-state-politics-live-blog
  • FalseFlag
    FalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    surbiton said:

    Since Miliband's forgetfulness, Labour's lead has been 6%,4%,6%.

    Obviously, the Great British public are not PBTories and they do not read that hideous Blair arse licker John Rentoul.

    Those numbers aren't impressive for party conference week.
    So Tories will have higher leads during their conference ?
    I imagine that polling will show the Conservatives and Labour at level-pegging during the Conservatives' conference.

    A number of polls are already, looking for more showing a lead myself.
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited September 2014
    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    What's wrong with VAT?

    Besides, those figures should be lower. £1000 for a bag? Lets face it, that's obscene.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
    Ah, so you want to get rid of the CGT exemption for primary residence sales? I could support that.
    No, since the primary residence is considered a home.

    Perhaps the 'lucky ones' like surbiton with more than one property should be paying their fair share? Second home owners seem like a better target.

    Scrapping the CGT exemption for private residences would make economic sense, but it would be political suicide for whichever party proposed it.

  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    edited September 2014
    SimonStClare said:

    Frank Dobson, makes a good point - he's favourable to the motion and says, to paraphrase:

    'In other wars, women are raped and killed by accident. Isis use this as a tactic. - And if it were not for the bombing that has already taken place, Isis could have taken Baghdad already.'

    Edit - I'm following Sparrow's live coverage below - always very good.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/sep/26/mps-debate-and-vote-on-air-strikes-against-islamic-state-politics-live-blog

    Ah, yes, those accidental rapes. I just tripped up and fell on her - could've happened to anyone, guv.

    He must own one of these vile t-shirts.
  • Slackbladder
    Slackbladder Posts: 9,800
    Sean_F said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
    Ah, so you want to get rid of the CGT exemption for primary residence sales? I could support that.
    No, since the primary residence is considered a home.

    Perhaps the 'lucky ones' like surbiton with more than one property should be paying their fair share? Second home owners seem like a better target.

    Scrapping the CGT exemption for private residences would make economic sense, but it would be political suicide for whichever party proposed it.

    Ok lets put it this way, it would make sense if:

    1) It always existed, so the current people which held property wouldn't be sitting on a huge tax bill suddenly.

    2) There was a form of 'roll-over' relief, which means if the money from the proceeds was re-invested in a new house, the gain would be deferred until the point in time that actual money was taken 'out'
  • Anorak
    Anorak Posts: 6,621
    Slackbladder said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
    Ah, so you want to get rid of the CGT exemption for primary residence sales? I could support that.
    No, since the primary residence is considered a home.

    Perhaps the 'lucky ones' like surbiton with more than one property should be paying their fair share? Second home owners seem like a better target.

    Scrapping the CGT exemption for private residences would make economic sense, but it would be political suicide for whichever party proposed it.

    Ok lets put it this way, it would make sense if:

    1) It always existed, so the current people which held property wouldn't be sitting on a huge tax bill suddenly.

    2) There was a form of 'roll-over' relief, which means if the money from the proceeds was re-invested in a new house, the gain would be deferred until the point in time that actual money was taken 'out'
    3) It backed out the CPI rise (which is NOT the case in the US, which seems a bit, well, shitty).
  • Plato
    Plato Posts: 15,724
    Well indeed. More politics of envy. If you're lucky enough to live in an area that undergoes serious Yuppification - then you'll get clobbered by a asset tax - so you'll have to move...

    Err...? Yes, that's a great idea - not. Replacing ordinary folk with the very wealthy is super - lots of places for *hard working families* to own and live in, not.

    Some people's desire to strip anyone who's notionally better off than them seems to override everything else.

    I-Want-What-Yours seems to be the logic applied. It's almost avaricious.
    TheWatcher said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    Faced with crippling bills, 'ordinary families' will be moving elsewhere, selling up to the super rich from overseas who can cough up £10,000+ a year without blinking.

    Is that what Labour want, more of London occupied by wealthy foreigners?
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Anorak said:

    SimonStClare said:

    Frank Dobson, makes a good point - he's favourable to the motion and says, to paraphrase:

    'In other wars, women are raped and killed by accident. Isis use this as a tactic. - And if it were not for the bombing that has already taken place, Isis could have taken Baghdad already.'

    Edit - I'm following Sparrow's live coverage below - always very good.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/sep/26/mps-debate-and-vote-on-air-strikes-against-islamic-state-politics-live-blog

    Ah, yes, those accidental rapes. I just tripped up and fell on her - could've happened to anyone, guv.

    He must own one of these vile t-shirts.
    If you watch the big bang theory, one of the chaps, had a robot arm gripping his todger, his excuse was he slipped and fell, one of his friend's replied with

    "So you slipped and fell into a robot arm, penis first?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k0bzMWFNls
  • Flightpath
    Flightpath Posts: 4,012
    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    Cars over 50K - so thats a major British car company ruined then? One that employs people in Merseyside and Coventry and has just invested millions on a new engine plant.
    What about the blue collar people who actually make these goods?
    What about the relatively poor people who actually sell relatively expensive goods? What happens to them when they lose their jobs?

    What passes for brains in the thick skulls of kippers? Do any kippers have the brains to tell me are they socialists or libertrians. Its hard to tell -
    'If its Tuesday in Halifax I'm a socialist'?
    'If its Wednesday in Clacton I'm a libertarian'?
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    TheWatcher said:

    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    What's wrong with VAT?

    Besides, those figures should be lower. £1000 for a bag? Lets face it, that's obscene.
    It is VAT.

    "I want it to investigate the feasibility of imposing a luxury goods rate of VAT. It makes no sense to me that VAT is levied at the same rate on budget items purchased by the hard-pressed as it is on premium ones that are the preserve of the very well heeled. And it seems to me that a luxury goods rate of 25 per cent could raise substantial extra funds from the wealthiest people. I would suggest such a rate be built around simple thresholds such as £200 for a pair of shoes, £1,000 for a bag or £50,000 for a new car."

    http://www.ukip.org/patrick_o_flynn_lays_out_ukip_s_economic_plan
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Anorak said:

    SimonStClare said:

    Frank Dobson, makes a good point - he's favourable to the motion and says, to paraphrase:

    'In other wars, women are raped and killed by accident. Isis use this as a tactic. - And if it were not for the bombing that has already taken place, Isis could have taken Baghdad already.'

    Edit - I'm following Sparrow's live coverage below - always very good.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/sep/26/mps-debate-and-vote-on-air-strikes-against-islamic-state-politics-live-blog

    Ah, yes, those accidental rapes. I just tripped up and fell on her - could've happened to anyone, guv.
    In this case, I believe Dobson is referring to 'accidents' as the inevitable constituencies of war per se - but agree, twas somewhat crass to link the two.
  • taffys
    taffys Posts: 9,753
    Goodness knows what Bev of this parish will think of that shoe tax....
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited September 2014
    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    What income? I have lived in my house for more than twenty years, its value on the market has in that time gone up about fivefold I have not made a penny from it. There is no income to be taxed.

    If I sell the house I would still have to live somewhere so I would have to buy another house. By the time one takes into consideration the cost of that other house, the costs of buying it (including stamp duty), moving there would not be that much profit. If you taxed me on the gross difference between the purchase price and selling price of my current home I would not be able to move, at least not and stay in the same area.

    So there would be social consequences to such a tax too. A lot of elderly people carrying on living in big expensive houses that they own but don't need instead of moving somewhere smaller thus releasing funds that will be parked in banks and thus available for productive lending as well as releasing housing stock for new and growing families.
  • john_zims
    john_zims Posts: 3,399
    @surbiton

    'It will not be charged on properties less than £2m . So, don't try spreading scare stories.'

    Not yet,but when it fails to raise the tax it's supposed to, then either the £2m value will be lowered or the threshold not updated with house price inflation.

    Labour pulled this scam with personal allowances.
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    Flightpath said:

    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    Cars over 50K - so thats a major British car company ruined then? One that employs people in Merseyside and Coventry and has just invested millions on a new engine plant.
    What about the blue collar people who actually make these goods?
    What about the relatively poor people who actually sell relatively expensive goods? What happens to them when they lose their jobs?

    What passes for brains in the thick skulls of kippers? Do any kippers have the brains to tell me are they socialists or libertrians. Its hard to tell -
    'If its Tuesday in Halifax I'm a socialist'?
    'If its Wednesday in Clacton I'm a libertarian'?
    Haha sooooooo predictable xxx
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    taffys said:

    Goodness knows what Bev of this parish will think of that shoe tax....

    As the male Imelda Marcus when it comes to shoes, this another reason for me not to vote for UKIP, and to tactically vote against them,

    (As someone with far too many Louis Vuitton bags and luggage, ditto)
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    anotherDave said:

    "I want it to investigate the feasibility of imposing a luxury goods rate of VAT. It makes no sense to me that VAT is levied at the same rate on budget items purchased by the hard-pressed as it is on premium ones that are the preserve of the very well heeled. And it seems to me that a luxury goods rate of 25 per cent could raise substantial extra funds from the wealthiest people. I would suggest such a rate be built around simple thresholds such as £200 for a pair of shoes, £1,000 for a bag or £50,000 for a new car."

    It's all the way back to the Sixties with UKIP. I'm old enough to remember Harold Wilson's higher rate of purchase tax on 'luxury goods'. It was an utter shambles, unsurprisingly.
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,312
    Flightpath said:

    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    Cars over 50K - so thats a major British car company ruined then? One that employs people in Merseyside and Coventry and has just invested millions on a new engine plant.
    What about the blue collar people who actually make these goods?
    What about the relatively poor people who actually sell relatively expensive goods? What happens to them when they lose their jobs?

    What passes for brains in the thick skulls of kippers? Do any kippers have the brains to tell me are they socialists or libertrians. Its hard to tell -
    'If its Tuesday in Halifax I'm a socialist'?
    'If its Wednesday in Clacton I'm a libertarian'?

    What passes for brains in the thick skulls of LDs? Do any LDs have the brains to tell me are they socialists or libertrians. Its hard to tell -
    'If its Tuesday in Halifax I'm a socialist'?
    'If its Wednesday in Clacton I'm a libertarian'?

    UKIP trying to be janus faced, must be copying others.

  • Flightpath
    Flightpath Posts: 4,012
    Slackbladder said:

    BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking · 9 mins
    US economy grew at 4.6% rate between April & June (revised from 4.0%), fastest pace in more than 2 years

    Whats that Ed? What's that?

    *tumbleweed*

    Don't forget that it is annualised.
    Growth estimates for the July-September quarter range are for 3.6 percent.

    In my opinion the big BBC story of the day is that the use of mobile phones are to be allowed on planes.
    This is a disaster - assuming you can get a connection of course. Its bad enough on a train.
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    HurstLlama said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    What income? I have lived in my house for more than twenty years, its value on the market has in that time gone up about fivefold I have not made a penny from it. There is no income to be taxed.

    If I sell the house I would still have to live somewhere so I would have to buy another house. By the time one takes into consideration the cost of that other house, the costs of buying it (including stamp duty), moving there would not be that much profit. If you taxed me on the gross difference between the purchase price and selling price of my current home I would not be able to move, at least not and stay in the same area.

    So there would be social consequences to such a tax too. A lot of elderly people carrying on living in big expensive houses that they own but don't need instead of moving somewhere smaller thus releasing funds that will be parked in banks and thus available for productive lending as well as releasing housing stock for new and growing families.
    Somewhere cheaper, not somewhere smaller. Presumably the ambition is to force pensioners to move to Glasgow.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    john_zims said:

    @surbiton

    'It will not be charged on properties less than £2m . So, don't try spreading scare stories.'

    Not yet,but when it fails to raise the tax it's supposed to, then either the £2m value will be lowered or the threshold not updated with house price inflation.

    Labour pulled this scam with personal allowances.

    All governments have a tendency to pull this stunt with all taxes. Income Tax was only going to be a temporary measure to help finance the Napoleonic War and levied at an outrageously high 2%. Look where we are now. If Mansion Tax comes in it will go the same way.

    Dogs bark, cats miaow, politicians find ways to tax us more and serve our interests less.
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Incidentally - It is striking from the UKIP conference agenda that they have given up any pretence of wanting to take us out of the EU as their principal goal.
  • Plato
    Plato Posts: 15,724
    I see the Kippers have just announced an Imelda Marcos Tax on shoes and handbags. Apparently spending £200 on a pair should attract a *luxury* tax.

    This is all very entertaining stuff.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Obviously Mike is a PB Tory, (a tweet in reply about the Populus polling)

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 10m

    @DC3001 In former times you would have expected conference bounce. LAB probably a bit disappointed
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Sean_F said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    TheWatcher said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
    Ah, so you want to get rid of the CGT exemption for primary residence sales? I could support that.
    No, since the primary residence is considered a home.

    Perhaps the 'lucky ones' like surbiton with more than one property should be paying their fair share? Second home owners seem like a better target.

    Scrapping the CGT exemption for private residences would make economic sense, but it would be political suicide for whichever party proposed it.

    I don't think it would make sense. If you tax a transaction then there will be fewer transactions. Push that tax too far and the number of transactions will collapse because people will not be able to afford to pay the tax. That has knock on effects, not only socially, but also financially (fewer house sales = less stamp duty).
  • ___Bobajob___
    ___Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    TheWatcher said:

    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    What's wrong with VAT?

    Besides, those figures should be lower. £1000 for a bag? Lets face it, that's obscene.
    The only reason high prices for handbags are deemed "obscene" is because they are bought overwhelmingly by women, whose hobby it is to buy designer goods. Many of the same women would think paying £1000+ for a football season ticket equally bonkers. People have expensive hobbies. My wife and her friends pay what I consider stupid amounts to get their hair done. They go without other things - like sports, to pay for them.
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Obviously Mike is a PB Tory, (a tweet in reply about the Populus polling)

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 10m

    @DC3001 In former times you would have expected conference bounce. LAB probably a bit disappointed

    Nah, they're not disappointed, they are relieved that their support didn't collapse following The Speech.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    taffys said:

    Goodness knows what Bev of this parish will think of that shoe tax....

    As the male Imelda Marcus when it comes to shoes, this another reason for me not to vote for UKIP, [snip]
    I have two sets of footwear - muddy green Wellies for country - shiny black ones for town..

    We're dead posh down hear in Wiltshire.
  • Cyclefree
    Cyclefree Posts: 25,709
    "£12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made. "

    Until a house is sold, no profit at all has been made. That is the point. You're being taxed every year out of income on a purely notional profit. It may well be that when the house is actually sold it is sold for less than the threshold. Will the tax paid then be paid back?

  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    anotherDave said:

    "I want it to investigate the feasibility of imposing a luxury goods rate of VAT. It makes no sense to me that VAT is levied at the same rate on budget items purchased by the hard-pressed as it is on premium ones that are the preserve of the very well heeled. And it seems to me that a luxury goods rate of 25 per cent could raise substantial extra funds from the wealthiest people. I would suggest such a rate be built around simple thresholds such as £200 for a pair of shoes, £1,000 for a bag or £50,000 for a new car."

    It's all the way back to the Sixties with UKIP. I'm old enough to remember Harold Wilson's higher rate of purchase tax on 'luxury goods'. It was an utter shambles, unsurprisingly.
    This is 25% rather than 20%. What was Mr Wilson's luxury goods tax rate?
  • Gaius
    Gaius Posts: 227
    Flightpath said:

    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    Cars over 50K - so thats a major British car company ruined then? One that employs people in Merseyside and Coventry and has just invested millions on a new engine plant.
    What about the blue collar people who actually make these goods?
    What about the relatively poor people who actually sell relatively expensive goods? What happens to them when they lose their jobs?

    Dont be so silly.

    If anyone is thinking of buying a 50 grand car adding an additional 2 grand to the purchase price won't put them off.

    And this is good politics, it will play well on the doorstep.

  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    SimonStClare said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    taffys said:

    Goodness knows what Bev of this parish will think of that shoe tax....

    As the male Imelda Marcus when it comes to shoes, this another reason for me not to vote for UKIP, [snip]
    I have two sets of footwear - muddy green Wellies for country - shiny black ones for town..

    We're dead posh down hear in Wiltshire.
    I have 14 pairs of footwear, possibly more, some of my shoes are very shiny.

    As JohnO, Richard N, Sunil and Neil can confirm.
  • Flightpath
    Flightpath Posts: 4,012
    Plato said:

    I see the Kippers have just announced an Imelda Marcos Tax on shoes and handbags. Apparently spending £200 on a pair should attract a *luxury* tax.

    This is all very entertaining stuff.

    Don't forget this is a kipper man and kipper men think women should know their place - which is cleaning behind the fridge and walking 2 paces behind you. Kippers would make good muslims it seems to me.
  • ___Bobajob___
    ___Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    SimonStClare said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    taffys said:

    Goodness knows what Bev of this parish will think of that shoe tax....

    As the male Imelda Marcus when it comes to shoes, this another reason for me not to vote for UKIP, [snip]
    I have two sets of footwear - muddy green Wellies for country - shiny black ones for town..

    We're dead posh down hear in Wiltshire.
    A wise selection.

    I have five pairs but one of them is a pair of flip flops.

    My wife has 60 plus pairs of shoes but AFAIK only one pair that cost more than £200.
  • ___Bobajob___
    ___Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Obviously Mike is a PB Tory, (a tweet in reply about the Populus polling)

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 10m

    @DC3001 In former times you would have expected conference bounce. LAB probably a bit disappointed

    Nah, they're not disappointed, they are relieved that their support didn't collapse following The Speech.
    Exactly right!
  • Cyclefree
    Cyclefree Posts: 25,709
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    SimonStClare said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    taffys said:

    Goodness knows what Bev of this parish will think of that shoe tax....

    As the male Imelda Marcus when it comes to shoes, this another reason for me not to vote for UKIP, [snip]
    I have two sets of footwear - muddy green Wellies for country - shiny black ones for town..

    We're dead posh down hear in Wiltshire.
    A wise selection.

    I have five pairs but one of them is a pair of flip flops.

    My wife has 60 plus pairs of shoes but AFAIK only one pair that cost more than £200.
    Wise woman. You can never have too many shoes or handbags.

  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Incidentally - It is striking from the UKIP conference agenda that they have given up any pretence of wanting to take us out of the EU as their principal goal.

    No they have not. It is simply that they know that everyone knows that is their goal and it is pointless to keep banging on about it when you have other things to say.

    Funny you were one of those complaining not so long ago that UKIP were a one trick pony and they shouldn't be taken seriously because they didn't have a full set of policies.

    You can't have it both ways.
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,077
    anotherDave said:

    HurstLlama said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Flightpath said:

    williamglenn said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
    The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
    Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky?
    I don't get your drift at all.
    No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
    What income? I have lived in my house for more than twenty years, its value on the market has in that time gone up about fivefold I have not made a penny from it. There is no income to be taxed.

    If I sell the house I would still have to live somewhere so I would have to buy another house. By the time one takes into consideration the cost of that other house, the costs of buying it (including stamp duty), moving there would not be that much profit. If you taxed me on the gross difference between the purchase price and selling price of my current home I would not be able to move, at least not and stay in the same area.

    So there would be social consequences to such a tax too. A lot of elderly people carrying on living in big expensive houses that they own but don't need instead of moving somewhere smaller thus releasing funds that will be parked in banks and thus available for productive lending as well as releasing housing stock for new and growing families.
    Somewhere cheaper, not somewhere smaller. Presumably the ambition is to force pensioners to move to Glasgow.
    Well, that's one way of making it a more Unionist city!

    :)
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Gaius said:


    And this is good politics, it will play well on the doorstep.

    @Mr_Eugenides: Tax on expensive shoes and handbags? That’ll solve Ukip’s women and gays problems…

    @janemerrick23: Given that Margaret Thatcher's favourite handbag, Launer, costs around £1,100 is Ukip's "wag tax" basically a Margaret Thatcher tax?
  • ___Bobajob___
    ___Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Cyclefree said:

    ___Bobajob___ said:

    SimonStClare said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    taffys said:

    Goodness knows what Bev of this parish will think of that shoe tax....

    As the male Imelda Marcus when it comes to shoes, this another reason for me not to vote for UKIP, [snip]
    I have two sets of footwear - muddy green Wellies for country - shiny black ones for town..

    We're dead posh down hear in Wiltshire.
    A wise selection.

    I have five pairs but one of them is a pair of flip flops.

    My wife has 60 plus pairs of shoes but AFAIK only one pair that cost more than £200.
    Wise woman. You can never have too many shoes or handbags.

    You are my wife and I claim my PB chequebook and pen ;-)
  • TCPoliticalBetting
    TCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Incidentally - It is striking from the UKIP conference agenda that they have given up any pretence of wanting to take us out of the EU as their principal goal.

    Inevitable. Somehow UKIP have to distract voters away from the EC referendum and the link to voting Conservative. This way UKIP's MEPs and their 50+ staff who are dependent upon the european gravy train, can carry on trousering the cash. Just a job creation exercise for this motley crew.
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Flightpath said:

    Plato said:

    I see the Kippers have just announced an Imelda Marcos Tax on shoes and handbags. Apparently spending £200 on a pair should attract a *luxury* tax.

    This is all very entertaining stuff.

    Don't forget this is a kipper man and kipper men think women should know their place - which is cleaning behind the fridge and walking 2 paces behind you. Kippers would make good muslims it seems to me.
    Mr Bloom was suspended from the party for that remark.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430935/Godfrey-Bloom-suspended-from-Ukip-for-slut-joke-as-Nigel-Farage-says-I-ve-had-enough
  • TheWatcher
    TheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited September 2014
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    TheWatcher said:

    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    What's wrong with VAT?

    Besides, those figures should be lower. £1000 for a bag? Lets face it, that's obscene.
    The only reason high prices for handbags are deemed "obscene" is because they are bought overwhelmingly by women, whose hobby it is to buy designer goods. Many of the same women would think paying £1000+ for a football season ticket equally bonkers. People have expensive hobbies. My wife and her friends pay what I consider stupid amounts to get their hair done. They go without other things - like sports, to pay for them.
    £2 million home = Bad

    £1000+ handbag = Good

    What a strange world of contradiction, and hypocrisy we live in.
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    anotherDave said:

    "I want it to investigate the feasibility of imposing a luxury goods rate of VAT. It makes no sense to me that VAT is levied at the same rate on budget items purchased by the hard-pressed as it is on premium ones that are the preserve of the very well heeled. And it seems to me that a luxury goods rate of 25 per cent could raise substantial extra funds from the wealthiest people. I would suggest such a rate be built around simple thresholds such as £200 for a pair of shoes, £1,000 for a bag or £50,000 for a new car."

    It's all the way back to the Sixties with UKIP. I'm old enough to remember Harold Wilson's higher rate of purchase tax on 'luxury goods'. It was an utter shambles, unsurprisingly.
    It is a stupid policy. You are absolutely right.

    Mind you I have always considered VAT pretty obscene as a tax. Given it is supposed to be on 'non essentials' - in Britain at least - it is simply a luxury tax with a huge net.
  • volcanopete
    volcanopete Posts: 2,078
    ScotlandNow ‏@ScotlandNow 12m
    Scottish government calls for devolved powers on fracking: http://bit.ly/1rxRQxW

    The politics of fracking are such that if I was a Scottish separatist I would want kept it at UK level because of the capacity to divide,Scotland needs Big Oil but does Big Oil need Scotland versus people who don't much like their water contaminated or their air contaminated or toxic chemicals getting leaked and spilt over much of what remains of the landscape.The coalition of forces which came together for Yes and No fall apart and so will all the establishment parties in Scotland,including the SNP,likely beneficiaries,Greens and Ukip.The campaign for independence splinters but chaos will reign at Holyrood.Only one man can then save Scotland.This man has not only saved the world and saved the union,he can save Scotland too.
    Scotland wants Scotland to determine fracking.Any decent government would grant it in celebration of the union,and watch the fur start flying and the calls for Gordon Brown to grow to prevent chaos in the fields and streets of Scotland.
  • Flightpath
    Flightpath Posts: 4,012
    patrick reminds us --
    ''All governments have a tendency to pull this stunt with all taxes. Income Tax was only going to be a temporary measure to help finance the Napoleonic War and levied at an outrageously high 2%. Look where we are now. If Mansion Tax comes in it will go the same way.
    Dogs bark, cats miaow, politicians find ways to tax us more and serve our interests less. ''

    Correct and this is why controlling spending is so important. Once labour has levied its tax, the place where it was meant to be spent will be forgotten and it will just be used as an excuse to spend and borrow more.

    Its very difficult to control spending for all sorts of reasons. One of them is that the public like money being spent on themselves and its easy for polititians to oblige them.
  • Socrates
    Socrates Posts: 10,322
    Flightpath said:

    Socrates said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Gaius said:


    ...

    ... to.
    loans covered by the community reinvestment act were actually far, far better in terms of defaults than the loans not covered by it. This right-wing myth has been debunked so many times it's only the most ideologically blinkered that still believe it.
    ...

    and
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
    ''In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.''
    ''The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.''
    " - Weren’t the majority of the subprime loans made by mortgage service companies not subject to the CRA? -
    This is true. But it is largely beside the point. A huge driver of the demand for subprime loans was the demand for CRA bonds. Banks operating under the CRA could meet their obligations by buying up CRA loans or MBS built from CRA loans. The CRA created a demand that the mortgage servicers were meeting.
    What's more, many smaller mortage service companies hoped to be acquired by larger banks. Increasing their CRA lending made them more attractive take-over targets.
    A study put out by the Treasury Department in 2000 found that the CRA was encouraging the mortgage servicers to provide loans to low-income borrowers, in part because the CRA loans had been so successful.
    Finally, the Clinton adminstration threatened to subject the mortgage companies to the CRA if they didn't comply voluntarily. They promptly agreed to increase their CRA-type lending in order to escape the kind of public scrutiny that comes with official CRA regulated status.''

    It seems to me to be a bit naive to ignore the CRA, how it was used abused and manipulated.

    From your own link:

    "Studies have suggested that only 6 percent of subprime loans were extended by CRA-regulated lenders to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas. Since these loans suffer from outsized losses (for reasons not yet clear), we'd still have a major problem. But it would probably be only about 1/4 of the size of the current mortgage mess."

    So even from someone arguing it was a bigger deal than conventionally believed, he still viewed three quarters of the mess as coming from elsewhere. Thus the idea it "caused" the GFC is nonsense.
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,077
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    SimonStClare said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    taffys said:

    Goodness knows what Bev of this parish will think of that shoe tax....

    As the male Imelda Marcus when it comes to shoes, this another reason for me not to vote for UKIP, [snip]
    I have two sets of footwear - muddy green Wellies for country - shiny black ones for town..

    We're dead posh down hear in Wiltshire.
    I have 14 pairs of footwear, possibly more, some of my shoes are very shiny.

    As JohnO, Richard N, Sunil and Neil can confirm.
    I limit myself to only two pairs. One pair of trainers that I wear just about anywhere (inc. Geneva this last week or so), and a pair of smart black shoes that I seem only to wear to job interviews these days (last one was in April).
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited September 2014
    anotherDave said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    anotherDave said:

    "I want it to investigate the feasibility of imposing a luxury goods rate of VAT. It makes no sense to me that VAT is levied at the same rate on budget items purchased by the hard-pressed as it is on premium ones that are the preserve of the very well heeled. And it seems to me that a luxury goods rate of 25 per cent could raise substantial extra funds from the wealthiest people. I would suggest such a rate be built around simple thresholds such as £200 for a pair of shoes, £1,000 for a bag or £50,000 for a new car."

    It's all the way back to the Sixties with UKIP. I'm old enough to remember Harold Wilson's higher rate of purchase tax on 'luxury goods'. It was an utter shambles, unsurprisingly.
    This is 25% rather than 20%. What was Mr Wilson's luxury goods tax rate?
    I don't remember, but my point isn't so much the rate as the arbitrary nature of it. Why handbags particularly? Why not opera tickets, or expensive furnishings, or fine wine? And, if fine wine, should someone who buys one bottle of Mouton-Rothschild 2002 (£328 from Berry Bros) pay a higher rate of tax than someone who buys a case of Haut-Batailley 2002 (£389.52)? And if so, why?

    It's just bonkers as an idea. Why on earth should UKIP, of all parties, which claims to want to sweep away silly regulations and EU interference, suddenly want to set up a whole new layer of bureaucracy so that the state can tell us what goods are deemed 'luxury'? That's more Ed Miliband territory in terms of arbitrary silliness, is it not?
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    New Thread
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    Tim Montgomerie (@TimMontgomerie)
    26/09/2014 12:43
    @Michael_Heaver @UKIP @Steven_Woolfe and @oflynnmep are very good
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    anotherDave said:

    "I want it to investigate the feasibility of imposing a luxury goods rate of VAT. It makes no sense to me that VAT is levied at the same rate on budget items purchased by the hard-pressed as it is on premium ones that are the preserve of the very well heeled. And it seems to me that a luxury goods rate of 25 per cent could raise substantial extra funds from the wealthiest people. I would suggest such a rate be built around simple thresholds such as £200 for a pair of shoes, £1,000 for a bag or £50,000 for a new car."

    It's all the way back to the Sixties with UKIP. I'm old enough to remember Harold Wilson's higher rate of purchase tax on 'luxury goods'. It was an utter shambles, unsurprisingly.
    I remember that too Mr Nabavi, but do not some EU countries vary different rates of VAT depending on the good's value/type. So presumably it can be done and without causing economic carnage.

    Not saying I agree with the principle, mind.
  • Flightpath
    Flightpath Posts: 4,012
    dr_spyn said:

    Flightpath said:

    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    Cars over 50K - so thats a major British car company ruined then? One that employs people in Merseyside and Coventry and has just invested millions on a new engine plant.
    What about the blue collar people who actually make these goods?
    What about the relatively poor people who actually sell relatively expensive goods? What happens to them when they lose their jobs?

    What passes for brains in the thick skulls of kippers? Do any kippers have the brains to tell me are they socialists or libertrians. Its hard to tell -
    'If its Tuesday in Halifax I'm a socialist'?
    'If its Wednesday in Clacton I'm a libertarian'?

    What passes for brains in the thick skulls of LDs? Do any LDs have the brains to tell me are they socialists or libertrians. Its hard to tell -
    'If its Tuesday in Halifax I'm a socialist'?
    'If its Wednesday in Clacton I'm a libertarian'?

    UKIP trying to be janus faced, must be copying others.

    So saying that UKIP are like the duplicitous LDs makes it OK does it?
    I'm glad we can agree that UKIP are a bunch of liars, charlatans and hypocrites.
  • Plato
    Plato Posts: 15,724
    Mr Flightpath - indeed.

    What I found most perplexing is the sums = £200 for shoes, and £1000 for a handbag. What about fur stoles! Or designer spectacle frames?

    Why? Is Mr O'Flynn applying his own spouse's spending habits here? It all sounds jolly sexist and I don't tend to be bothered about that. Why not briefcases? Or cufflinks or watches?

    I do love this silly stuff. I'd be concerned if it was the LDs or Labour saying it as there'd be a chance of it happening.
    Flightpath said:

    Plato said:

    I see the Kippers have just announced an Imelda Marcos Tax on shoes and handbags. Apparently spending £200 on a pair should attract a *luxury* tax.

    This is all very entertaining stuff.

    Don't forget this is a kipper man and kipper men think women should know their place - which is cleaning behind the fridge and walking 2 paces behind you. Kippers would make good muslims it seems to me.
  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited September 2014
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Incidentally - It is striking from the UKIP conference agenda that they have given up any pretence of wanting to take us out of the EU as their principal goal.

    Well given they have already won the Euro elections on a EU Withdrawal ticket and this is a domestic election it seems reasonable to expect them to talk about domestic issues. Unlike some other parties their credentials on the EU are in tact.
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    anotherDave said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    anotherDave said:

    "I want it to investigate the feasibility of imposing a luxury goods rate of VAT. It makes no sense to me that VAT is levied at the same rate on budget items purchased by the hard-pressed as it is on premium ones that are the preserve of the very well heeled. And it seems to me that a luxury goods rate of 25 per cent could raise substantial extra funds from the wealthiest people. I would suggest such a rate be built around simple thresholds such as £200 for a pair of shoes, £1,000 for a bag or £50,000 for a new car."

    It's all the way back to the Sixties with UKIP. I'm old enough to remember Harold Wilson's higher rate of purchase tax on 'luxury goods'. It was an utter shambles, unsurprisingly.
    This is 25% rather than 20%. What was Mr Wilson's luxury goods tax rate?
    I don't remember, but my point isn't so much the rate as the arbitrary nature of it. Why handbags particularly? Why not opera tickets, or expensive furnishings, or fine wine? And, if fine wine, should someone who buys one bottle of Mouton-Rothschild 2002 (£328 from Berry Bros) pay a higher rate of tax than someone who buys a case of Haut-Batailley 2002 (£389.52)? And if so, why?

    It's just bonkers as an idea. Why on earth should UKIP, of all parties, which claims to want to sweep away silly regulations and EU interference, suddenly want to set up a whole new layer of burweaucracy so that the state can tell us what goods are deemed 'luxury'? That's more Ed Miliband territory in terms of arbitrary silliness, is it not?
    VAT is already charged at different rates on different classes of goods.
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,077
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    That's more Ed Miliband territory in terms of arbitrary silliness, is it not?

    Well, they are looking to corner the Labour vote :)
  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    Carswell and Farage's speeches live here apparently:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11122594/Watch-Ukip-Party-Conference-live-Nigel-Farage-and-Douglas-Carswells-speeches.html
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Funny you were one of those complaining not so long ago that UKIP were a one trick pony and they shouldn't be taken seriously because they didn't have a full set of policies.

    No I wasn't. I know you have a habit of making things up about me, but in fact I have said the complete opposite of that - I have suggested that UKIP should concentrate on preparing the case for Brexit.
  • Plato
    Plato Posts: 15,724
    LOL
    Scott_P said:

    Gaius said:


    And this is good politics, it will play well on the doorstep.

    @Mr_Eugenides: Tax on expensive shoes and handbags? That’ll solve Ukip’s women and gays problems…

    @janemerrick23: Given that Margaret Thatcher's favourite handbag, Launer, costs around £1,100 is Ukip's "wag tax" basically a Margaret Thatcher tax?
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    anotherDave said:

    VAT is already charged at different rates on different classes of goods.

    On different classes of goods, yes (unfortunately, in my view - I'd prefer a completely flat rate on everything). But not on different prices of goods.
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    Flightpath said:

    patrick reminds us --
    ''All governments have a tendency to pull this stunt with all taxes. Income Tax was only going to be a temporary measure to help finance the Napoleonic War and levied at an outrageously high 2%. Look where we are now. If Mansion Tax comes in it will go the same way.
    Dogs bark, cats miaow, politicians find ways to tax us more and serve our interests less. ''

    Correct and this is why controlling spending is so important. Once labour has levied its tax, the place where it was meant to be spent will be forgotten and it will just be used as an excuse to spend and borrow more.

    Its very difficult to control spending for all sorts of reasons. One of them is that the public like money being spent on themselves and its easy for polititians to oblige them.

    So why aren't the Tories (or UKIP for that matter) proposing real radical cuts in spending? I don't mean the sort of tinkering we are seeing at the moment (and again that is also what UKIP are proposing just in slightly different places) but real radical cuts to bring the state share of GDP down below 40% to start with then below 35% or even more. It was less than 35% of GDP as recently as 2000. We should aim to get back down to at least that level.

    Trouble is no one is even suggesting it.
  • Flightpath
    Flightpath Posts: 4,012
    isam said:

    Flightpath said:

    isam said:

    Tony Grew (@ayestotheright)
    26/09/2014 12:44
    Ukip's @oflynnmep proposes a luxury goods tax, shoes that cost over £200, bags over £1,000, cars over £50k #UKIPConf14

    Cars over 50K - so thats a major British car company ruined then? One that employs people in Merseyside and Coventry and has just invested millions on a new engine plant.
    What about the blue collar people who actually make these goods?
    What about the relatively poor people who actually sell relatively expensive goods? What happens to them when they lose their jobs?

    What passes for brains in the thick skulls of kippers? Do any kippers have the brains to tell me are they socialists or libertrians. Its hard to tell -
    'If its Tuesday in Halifax I'm a socialist'?
    'If its Wednesday in Clacton I'm a libertarian'?
    Haha sooooooo predictable xxx
    Yes you are. Ever heard of VAT at 20%?
    As someone has quite sharply pointed out - why is it OK to tax a woman's hand bag but not a man's football season ticket?
    Or are you proposing to tax season tickets? Indeed why should a £1000 season ticket not be taxed as opposed to a £200 pair of shoes.
  • Plato
    Plato Posts: 15,724
    Yup.

    Wasn't Income Tax introduced by Charles II as a temporary measure to pay for a war or two? Or something like that if I've managed to totally mangle my point?!
    Flightpath said:

    patrick reminds us --
    ''All governments have a tendency to pull this stunt with all taxes. Income Tax was only going to be a temporary measure to help finance the Napoleonic War and levied at an outrageously high 2%. Look where we are now. If Mansion Tax comes in it will go the same way.
    Dogs bark, cats miaow, politicians find ways to tax us more and serve our interests less. ''

    Correct and this is why controlling spending is so important. Once labour has levied its tax, the place where it was meant to be spent will be forgotten and it will just be used as an excuse to spend and borrow more.

    Its very difficult to control spending for all sorts of reasons. One of them is that the public like money being spent on themselves and its easy for polititians to oblige them.

  • perdix
    perdix Posts: 1,806
    manofkent2014 said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Incidentally - It is striking from the UKIP conference agenda that they have given up any pretence of wanting to take us out of the EU as their principal goal.

    Well given they have already won the Euro elections on a EU Withdrawal ticket and this is a domestic election it seems reasonable to expect them to talk about domestic issues. Unlike some other parties their credentials on the EU are in tact.
    IIRC according to a poll most kippers don't want to leave the EU!

  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Funny you were one of those complaining not so long ago that UKIP were a one trick pony and they shouldn't be taken seriously because they didn't have a full set of policies.

    No I wasn't. I know you have a habit of making things up about me, but in fact I have said the complete opposite of that - I have suggested that UKIP should concentrate on preparing the case for Brexit.
    Nope that is not true. As recently as last year you saying exactly what I said. Criticising UKIP for having no policies other than anti-EU and anti-immigration.

    And I don't make up things about you. You just have very selective memory.
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    anotherDave said:

    VAT is already charged at different rates on different classes of goods.

    On different classes of goods, yes (unfortunately, in my view - I'd prefer a completely flat rate on everything). But not on different prices of goods.
    ?

    Luxury goods is a class.
  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited September 2014
    perdix said:

    manofkent2014 said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Incidentally - It is striking from the UKIP conference agenda that they have given up any pretence of wanting to take us out of the EU as their principal goal.

    Well given they have already won the Euro elections on a EU Withdrawal ticket and this is a domestic election it seems reasonable to expect them to talk about domestic issues. Unlike some other parties their credentials on the EU are in tact.
    IIRC according to a poll most kippers don't want to leave the EU!

    Well given its you the natural assumption is you do not remember correctly. If its a poll post the link
  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Where do UKIP stand on golf club memberships and gin? Are they luxuries?
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    antifrank said:

    Where do UKIP stand on golf club memberships and gin? Are they luxuries?

    Absolutely, they are. Gentlefolks' club (e.g. The Union Jack Club) membership and whisky are, on the other hand, essentials and should be free of all duty and tax. As indeed should all wines grown and produced in England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Portugal. French wines should be charged at double the normal rate, until such time as they give us back Aquitaine.
  • Grandiose
    Grandiose Posts: 2,323
    Plato said:

    Yup.

    Wasn't Income Tax introduced by Charles II as a temporary measure to pay for a war or two? Or something like that if I've managed to totally mangle my point?!


    Flightpath said:

    patrick reminds us --
    ''All governments have a tendency to pull this stunt with all taxes. Income Tax was only going to be a temporary measure to help finance the Napoleonic War and levied at an outrageously high 2%. Look where we are now. If Mansion Tax comes in it will go the same way.
    Dogs bark, cats miaow, politicians find ways to tax us more and serve our interests less. ''

    Correct and this is why controlling spending is so important. Once labour has levied its tax, the place where it was meant to be spent will be forgotten and it will just be used as an excuse to spend and borrow more.

    Its very difficult to control spending for all sorts of reasons. One of them is that the public like money being spent on themselves and its easy for polititians to oblige them.

    It was a Napoleonic era measure to fight the French.

  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    Baskerville said:

    surbiton said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
    .

    Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.


    How many such examples can you give ? Remember poll tax also increased some families total bill three, four times. But the Tories still went ahead with.

    The mansion tax is largely symbolic. No one is pretending that the entire NHS growth will be funded by it. But it differentiates Labour from the Tories. Also LDs will look silly if they also didn't have the same policy as it is their's originally.

    It will not be charged on properties less than £2m . So, don't try spreading scare stories.

    How do you make rich Russians living in £10m houses gotten through immoral means pay ?

    Houses cannot escape. I have two houses in London - both must be valued at around £900k. I am not worried.
    So you can own two properties worth £2m and pay no tax. No wonder you're not worried!
    That is exactly the point. Those whose properties are getting into the £2m bracket can always sell it and buy a £1.5m house if they don't want to pay.

    The best proponent of IHT , for example, I have heard was actually a Tory, Portillo.

    His point on This Week was that income tax rates should be lowered as it was "earned" and IHT / CGT should be increased as they were "unearned". He has a point. Why should the rich be allowed accumulate money by doing no work ?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories