The thing that got me about this story is not so much the failure to comply with complex regulations but the money. Reeves, as Chancellor, gets free accommodation in Downing Street, fair enough. But she rents out her own house at £3200 per month and that is hers. Which is quite a perk when you think about it.
A lot of people would call that a salary, it is more than the average wage. And, because of her failure to address the problem, she doesn't even pay NI on it so it is taxed less than such a wage would be.
If the Chancellor wants to look for examples of why IT and NI should be combined and applied to all income she doesn't have to look very far. If she wants to see the urgency of reducing the regulatory stranglehold on this country driving up costs and making investment less attractive she has a good example for this too. Every day is a learning day Rachel.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
Fully agree with the need for quality standards and the role of the local authority in enforcing them.
But submitting sheafs of paper and paying £900 is not going to make anyone behave better - it’s a tax on the law abiding. Dodgy folk aren’t going to bother.
If you need to have a register charge people £100 for a basic entry, fund an enforcement organisation and then hit offenders with massive fines to cover the cost. But do it on the basis of intelligence and investigation rather than pushing paper around a desk.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
She’s spent the last 18 months doing a load of politically and ideologically motivated little things, that have burned up a significant amount of political capital without raising much money. Hence borrowing £20bn last month.
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
I see little point now in getting any job in this country that pays more than £100k.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
I rent a flat in Southwark and luckily knew about the requirement for a license (it is complicated - it doesn't even apply to all wards in the borough). I don't use a lettings agent so I did my own research into the regulatory requirements. The license is valid for 5 years so the cost is only £180/year or £15/month. The borough has a responsibility to ensure that landlords fulfill all their statutory responsibilities - to get the license you need to show that the property meets energy efficiency targets and has had gas and electricity safety checks - and enforcement costs money so it makes sense to have landlords not the general taxpayer meet the cost. In practice of course the cost will be met my the landlord and tenant combined. I don't think the regime is unreasonable - it was introduced to deal with specific rogue landlord type issues. As for Reeves, I think it is the letting agents' fault assuming she has a full management deal with them. They usually deal with regulatory requirements like the annual gas safety check.
Assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord, and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance ?
Suspect they haven't thought about it that much.
Being the opposition party is a pretty thankless task and forcing the resignation of a minister is about as close as you ever get to actual achievement.
One of the ways an authoritarian system exercises control issues by having lots of complicated rules that are difficult to follow. It makes it likely that everyone is a rule-breaker, even just unintentionally, and so encourages people to keep their heads down in the hope that they won't have attention directed to their actions.
We should make sure that rules and laws are ready for a law-abiding person to follow.
Not quite everyone.
There is an entire industry that exists to advise on regulations of all kinds. Often employing folk who used to be on the other side of the fence.
The more complicated the regulation, the better their living.
Indeed, so we end up with a whole class of bureaucrats, lawyers, accountants, agents etc, many of whom are politically connected, employing former politicians and advising the current lot, who benefit personally from life being made as difficult as possible for the average person.
The whole lot of the parasites need to be thrown overboard.
Curious story to me here, the government has spent 5 years funding a battle between HMRC and the NHS over whether VAT applies on hospital parking. Why does it matter whether it does or doesn't? We are just paying lawyers a fortune and blocking the courts to decide whether the money sits in one of the publics bank accounts or another.
The vat would be charged to the end user though. But agreed - it shouldn’t be going through the courts. The agreement should be “we’ll charge in future and let you off the past”
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
Fully agree with the need for quality standards and the role of the local authority in enforcing them.
But submitting sheafs of paper and paying £900 is not going to make anyone behave better - it’s a tax on the law abiding. Dodgy folk aren’t going to bother.
If you need to have a register charge people £100 for a basic entry, fund an enforcement organisation and then hit offenders with massive fines to cover the cost. But do it on the basis of intelligence and investigation rather than pushing paper around a desk.
Okay, yes, I'm with you, and the evidence of Reeves' lack of compliance forcibly backs up your point - would anyone have known or cared had she not been CoE?
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
I wonder which politician will get confused/caught out first trying to refer to it as a 2% increase, and which opposition politician does a good job of pointing out that 20p to 22p is actually a 10% increase in income tax.
Indeed, someone paying £500/month at 20p will pay £550 a month at 22p.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Who would be a landlord now?
The new legislation coming down the road heaps on more regulation and restrictions on top.
It's like any business. You deal with what's in front of you and if you can't deal with it - get out. There are some who regret (and complain loudly) about changes but to be realistic, they need to get out of the business.
I would advise no one to be a residential landlord. The cost and delay of getting rid of a defaulting tenant is horrendous.
Of course, there are landlords who will go down the non-legal path.
Certainly if you are an active politician, it's good advice not to be a landlord. Apart from anything else, you are handing your tenants considerable leverage as a story about how you're not a decent landlord - whether true or not - will generally get publicity so long as the tenants are prepared to be named,
The classic, which many MPs still do, is to buy a London house. Then rent it to an MP. Who puts it on expenses.
You then rent another London house, to actually use. This is often rented from another MP.
In a number of cases, this is a “pair” - two MPs renting from each other, using expenses to pay each others mortgages.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
Why does the letting agent suddenly have a responsibility for this?
You are hiring them to find and manage tenants not to ensure you comply with the law (obviously Hampstead is a far more sensible council so you don’t need a licence)
The Letting Agent does not suddenly have a responsibility for this, other than regulatory requirements laid on them, and contractual responsibility to the Landlord.
The responsibility is with the Principal, which is why if the agent misappropriates deposit money, the Landlord is still in the frame to the tenant - the LL's recourse is against the Agent.
That was my point. Hiring an agent doesn’t allow you to lay off the responsibility.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
Fully agree with the need for quality standards and the role of the local authority in enforcing them.
But submitting sheafs of paper and paying £900 is not going to make anyone behave better - it’s a tax on the law abiding. Dodgy folk aren’t going to bother.
If you need to have a register charge people £100 for a basic entry, fund an enforcement organisation and then hit offenders with massive fines to cover the cost. But do it on the basis of intelligence and investigation rather than pushing paper around a desk.
As a landlord, the system in Scotland seems perfectly reasonable to me. A fee per year to register (so it puts off everyone applying for it, thereby reducing workload on the council), and a number of safety tests that are perfectly sensible - indeed, the only kind of landlord that wouldn't be happy to do them would be a rogue one by definition.
There is a lot of special pleading on here that I have no time for. If you are in the exceptionally priviliged position to let a property out then you will have the time and the cash to get these things sorted, and the wider benefits for society are significantly greater than the cost.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
She’s spent the last 18 months doing a load of politically and ideologically motivated little things, that have burned up a significant amount of political capital without raising much money. Hence borrowing £20bn last month.
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
I see little point now in getting any job in this country that pays more than £100k.
Plenty of them in Dubai, Singapore, Texas… lower income tax in those places too.
It’s effectively the imposition of a maximum wage, and leads inevitably to emigration and capital flight.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Welcome to the world of regulation, where the regulated pay for the privilege of being regulated.
And we vote for them to bring in more regulation. The only way to get some compensation for this is to bet - which is why we are all here.
Gambling taxes look set to increase in the Budget.
It was stupid for Reeves and Starmer to make their pledges on Income Tax, VAT and Triple Lock, but they did make it central to their Ming Vase strategy. They have to stick to it, but that means tax increases elsewhere.
I expect that higher rate tax relief on pensions will go, as will most of the tax free lump sum on pensions. Quite possibly rather than just freezing the threshold for higer and additional rate tax they could be lowered etc
However, I'm sure your final salary pensions in the NHS will be perfectly safe, so don't you worry.
Does the NHS have a final salary scheme? My GP father-in-law had a pension based on averages in his time as a GP. Mind you the stress of the job (and lifestyle) meant he never collected.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
The existence of a license is not really in question, though it is by Council Area.
Because when there was not strong regulation, some LLs exploited tenants. Therefore the Housing Act 2005.
There is a real question as to why the regulation in England costs about 5x as much as it does in Scotland.
OTOH a National Register was passed into law this week under the Renters Rights Bill.
Since it's very short term, it's a minor offence for most Councils - their real concern is exploitation of and danger to the tenant.
My issue is that this is a bureaucratic make work scheme.
Good landlords will do the paperwork and get a licence (and/or forget - this is mildly embarrassing for Reeves but no more than that). Bad landlords will carry on as they were.
In short, this is expensive and ineffective and hits the law-abiding not the dodgy landlords
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Welcome to the world of regulation, where the regulated pay for the privilege of being regulated.
And we vote for them to bring in more regulation. The only way to get some compensation for this is to bet - which is why we are all here.
Gambling taxes look set to increase in the Budget.
It was stupid for Reeves and Starmer to make their pledges on Income Tax, VAT and Triple Lock, but they did make it central to their Ming Vase strategy. They have to stick to it, but that means tax increases elsewhere.
I expect that higher rate tax relief on pensions will go, as will most of the tax free lump sum on pensions. Quite possibly rather than just freezing the threshold for higer and additional rate tax they could be lowered etc
However, I'm sure your final salary pensions in the NHS will be perfectly safe, so don't you worry.
Don't knock it. The threat of a serious number of consultants calling it quits is probably the best protection against swinging cuts in the reliefs given to pensions that we have. I agree with @Foxy pensions are going to take a hit but those consultants are our Maginot line.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
And such actions could reduce housing supply still further.
Bad landlords that don't provide decent accommodation are a noticeable minority but plenty of good ones will throw in the towel over this.
A better policy would be encouraging more people to bring their property to market for rent, so renters have more choice.
I don't know. In the 10 years or so I have been a landlord there have been several bouts of regulation and accompanying fears of complexity. But I have a good agent who manages everything for me, and they are local so their fee supports the local economy.
I concede it would be different without an agent, but there is enough profit in the market that a rational landlord would just employ an agent to manage the bureaucracy rather than duck out of the market.
As for your final paragraph, I can't quite see it. Aside from empty properties, how does bringing a property to market for rent so anything other than shift one family in and one out without sating demand? Perhaps I am missing something.
(As an aside I am not sure if I am now included in your 'erstwhile liberal semi-retired' group after I disagreed with you on here last night. My intention was not to defend Foxy but to defend the freedom of speech that this site does so well, notwithstanding Leon's perennial grumbling. If it came across as an attack, I apologise. I am also very, very far away from semi-retired and not sure I count as a liberal, so I'm probably safe).
It reduces the supply of vacant homes, second homes or bed-blocked homes, by encouraging their rental. It also increases demand for new build flats and the like that developers otherwise might not bring to market if prospective landlords weren't willing to fund.
You need a mix of both sale and rental properties to cater to families who don't want to buy or can't afford to buy, especially those who must be more mobile.
So I expect these measures to both depress the supply of rental homes and homes more broadly.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Welcome to the world of regulation, where the regulated pay for the privilege of being regulated.
And we vote for them to bring in more regulation. The only way to get some compensation for this is to bet - which is why we are all here.
Gambling taxes look set to increase in the Budget.
It was stupid for Reeves and Starmer to make their pledges on Income Tax, VAT and Triple Lock, but they did make it central to their Ming Vase strategy. They have to stick to it, but that means tax increases elsewhere.
I expect that higher rate tax relief on pensions will go, as will most of the tax free lump sum on pensions. Quite possibly rather than just freezing the threshold for higer and additional rate tax they could be lowered etc
However, I'm sure your final salary pensions in the NHS will be perfectly safe, so don't you worry.
That pension scheme closed some years ago. The current scheme is career average earnings, from 2015.
Much of the tax problems around NHS pensions were down to the way that the Annual Allowance was calculated, potentially causing marginal rates of over 100%.
I don't particularly want to retire completely yet, but some of the potential changes could bring forward my plans.
If people are to be expected to save for their retirement they need long term consistency. It doesnt look like we will get it.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
She’s spent the last 18 months doing a load of politically and ideologically motivated little things, that have burned up a significant amount of political capital without raising much money. Hence borrowing £20bn last month.
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
I see little point now in getting any job in this country that pays more than £100k.
Plenty of them in Dubai, Singapore, Texas… lower income tax in those places too.
It’s effectively the imposition of a maximum wage, and leads inevitably to emigration and capital flight.
It's one of the stupidest policies of the last 30 years.
It's a travesty Osborne didn't deal with it when he could.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
She’s spent the last 18 months doing a load of politically and ideologically motivated little things, that have burned up a significant amount of political capital without raising much money. Hence borrowing £20bn last month.
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
I see little point now in getting any job in this country that pays more than £100k.
Extending the income tax bands freeze to 2030 appears to be virtually certain and will raise around £10bn. The higher rate could be increased to 42% and additional rate to 48% a bit like Scotland.
Lowering the additional rate start point below £125,140 to say £110,000 without adjusting the personal allowance taper would create an extremely high marginal rate of 67.5% from in this case £110,000 to £125,140. She could of course avoid that by lowering the personal allowance withdrawal start point from £100,000 to say £80,000!
The personal allowance taper will never be removed. It raises too much money and from a political viewpoint only affects a few perceived to be wealthy people.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
It would need to be CGT on primary residence though to raise what it is claimed she needs. That would create a melt down that would make the winter fuel allowance seem like a picnic. Does she really want to punch everyone who owns a house in the face like that?
CGT on primary residence would kill off the housing market so it's a rubbish idea.
But frankly it's crazy that you might think that's unfair. The lack of taxation on property gains is why it's such an absurdly popular place for your cash compared with other investments (and you get to live in it too!)
You can have CGT provided you also have rollover relief.
This means if you are moving from one principal residence to another (ie its part of your life setup) then it’s tax free. But if you downsize / crystallise the gains and use the money for anything else then that portion of the proceeds is treated like any other investment.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Who would be a landlord now?
The new legislation coming down the road heaps on more regulation and restrictions on top.
The like of Blackrock, L&G and Lloyd’s. Small landlords will leave the market. I suspect that was the aim.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
She’s spent the last 18 months doing a load of politically and ideologically motivated little things, that have burned up a significant amount of political capital without raising much money. Hence borrowing £20bn last month.
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
I see little point now in getting any job in this country that pays more than £100k.
Extending the income tax bands freeze to 2030 appears to be virtually certain and will raise around £10bn. The higher rate could be increased to 42% and additional rate to 48% a bit like Scotland.
Lowering the additional rate start point below £125,140 to say £110,000 without adjusting the personal allowance taper would create an extremely high marginal rate of 67.5% from in this case £110,000 to £125,140. She could of course avoid that by lowering the personal allowance withdrawal start point from £100,000 to say £80,000!
The personal allowance taper will never be removed. It raises too much money and from a political viewpoint only affects a few perceived to be wealthy people.
Don’t give her ideas!
IIRC there’s 1.6m earning over £100k, there’s probably another couple of million earning more than £80k, that’s roughly the 90th percentile.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
But you’re not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Robert.
For Starmer to lose one senior minister over their housing empire might be considered unlucky, to have a second senior minister also in trouble over her housing empire only a couple of months later…
The party of the workers.
Didn’t they also lose the housing minister?
Angela wore many hats.
I was thinking of the guy with 9 houses and the black mold.
May be he wasn’t housing minister?
Edit: must have misremembered his role unless he had some housing responsibility on Ilford council
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
She’s spent the last 18 months doing a load of politically and ideologically motivated little things, that have burned up a significant amount of political capital without raising much money. Hence borrowing £20bn last month.
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
I see little point now in getting any job in this country that pays more than £100k.
Extending the income tax bands freeze to 2030 appears to be virtually certain and will raise around £10bn. The higher rate could be increased to 42% and additional rate to 48% a bit like Scotland.
Lowering the additional rate start point below £125,140 to say £110,000 without adjusting the personal allowance taper would create an extremely high marginal rate of 67.5% from in this case £110,000 to £125,140. She could of course avoid that by lowering the personal allowance withdrawal start point from £100,000 to say £80,000!
The personal allowance taper will never be removed. It raises too much money and from a political viewpoint only affects a few perceived to be wealthy people.
I think it will. Over time, inflation will make that quite a normal salary in many professions and the economic damage it does is clear.
We simply need a brave politician to make the case.
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Welcome to the world of regulation, where the regulated pay for the privilege of being regulated.
And we vote for them to bring in more regulation. The only way to get some compensation for this is to bet - which is why we are all here.
Gambling taxes look set to increase in the Budget.
It was stupid for Reeves and Starmer to make their pledges on Income Tax, VAT and Triple Lock, but they did make it central to their Ming Vase strategy. They have to stick to it, but that means tax increases elsewhere.
I expect that higher rate tax relief on pensions will go, as will most of the tax free lump sum on pensions. Quite possibly rather than just freezing the threshold for higer and additional rate tax they could be lowered etc
I disagree with “they have to stick to it”
They can - possibly - make the argument that it was far worse than they first realised and they have no choice. It would have been better last summer but maybe they can still get away with it. Otherwise we’ll be having the same conversation next year and the year after
Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .
The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.
The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.
Welcome to the world of regulation, where the regulated pay for the privilege of being regulated.
And we vote for them to bring in more regulation. The only way to get some compensation for this is to bet - which is why we are all here.
Gambling taxes look set to increase in the Budget.
It was stupid for Reeves and Starmer to make their pledges on Income Tax, VAT and Triple Lock, but they did make it central to their Ming Vase strategy. They have to stick to it, but that means tax increases elsewhere.
I expect that higher rate tax relief on pensions will go, as will most of the tax free lump sum on pensions. Quite possibly rather than just freezing the threshold for higer and additional rate tax they could be lowered etc
However, I'm sure your final salary pensions in the NHS will be perfectly safe, so don't you worry.
That pension scheme closed some years ago. The current scheme is career average earnings, from 2015.
Much of the tax problems around NHS pensions were down to the way that the Annual Allowance was calculated, potentially causing marginal rates of over 100%.
I don't particularly want to retire completely yet, but some of the potential changes could bring forward my plans.
If people are to be expected to save for their retirement they need long term consistency. It doesnt look like we will get it.
I looked at an NHS job recently. It was 1/60th of average salary per year. But if you're on, say, £60k - which will go up each year - then you bank a guaranteed pension of £1k a year every year.
So, just 12 years in the role and you've easily doubled your state pension and some. And you'd probably achieve that in less than 10.
Totally different to DB pensions in the private sector.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
She’s spent the last 18 months doing a load of politically and ideologically motivated little things, that have burned up a significant amount of political capital without raising much money. Hence borrowing £20bn last month.
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
I see little point now in getting any job in this country that pays more than £100k.
Plenty of them in Dubai, Singapore, Texas… lower income tax in those places too.
It’s effectively the imposition of a maximum wage, and leads inevitably to emigration and capital flight.
It's one of the stupidest policies of the last 30 years.
It's a travesty Osborne didn't deal with it when he could.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
She’s spent the last 18 months doing a load of politically and ideologically motivated little things, that have burned up a significant amount of political capital without raising much money. Hence borrowing £20bn last month.
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
I see little point now in getting any job in this country that pays more than £100k.
Plenty of them in Dubai, Singapore, Texas… lower income tax in those places too.
It’s effectively the imposition of a maximum wage, and leads inevitably to emigration and capital flight.
It's one of the stupidest policies of the last 30 years.
It's a travesty Osborne didn't deal with it when he could.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
It would need to be CGT on primary residence though to raise what it is claimed she needs. That would create a melt down that would make the winter fuel allowance seem like a picnic. Does she really want to punch everyone who owns a house in the face like that?
CGT on primary residence would kill off the housing market so it's a rubbish idea.
But frankly it's crazy that you might think that's unfair. The lack of taxation on property gains is why it's such an absurdly popular place for your cash compared with other investments (and you get to live in it too!)
You can have CGT provided you also have rollover relief.
This means if you are moving from one principal residence to another (ie its part of your life setup) then it’s tax free. But if you downsize / crystallise the gains and use the money for anything else then that portion of the proceeds is treated like any other investment.
Ah yes, the lovely reliefs, which in two years time when she needs to come back again will be referred to as a "loophole" that people like [insert fairly well off notorious celebrity your tribe doesnt like who has a large main property) use to avoid paying their fare share.
Comments
A lot of people would call that a salary, it is more than the average wage. And, because of her failure to address the problem, she doesn't even pay NI on it so it is taxed less than such a wage would be.
If the Chancellor wants to look for examples of why IT and NI should be combined and applied to all income she doesn't have to look very far. If she wants to see the urgency of reducing the regulatory stranglehold on this country driving up costs and making investment less attractive she has a good example for this too. Every day is a learning day Rachel.
But submitting sheafs of paper and paying £900 is not going to make anyone behave better - it’s a tax on the law abiding. Dodgy folk aren’t going to bother.
If you need to have a register charge people £100 for a basic entry, fund an enforcement organisation and then hit offenders with massive fines to cover the cost. But do it on the basis of intelligence and investigation rather than pushing paper around a desk.
Being the opposition party is a pretty thankless task and forcing the resignation of a minister is about as close as you ever get to actual achievement.
The whole lot of the parasites need to be thrown overboard.
NEW THREAD
You then rent another London house, to actually use. This is often rented from another MP.
In a number of cases, this is a “pair” - two MPs renting from each other, using expenses to pay each others mortgages.
There is a lot of special pleading on here that I have no time for. If you are in the exceptionally priviliged position to let a property out then you will have the time and the cash to get these things sorted, and the wider benefits for society are significantly greater than the cost.
It’s effectively the imposition of a maximum wage, and leads inevitably to emigration and capital flight.
Good landlords will do the paperwork and get a licence (and/or forget - this is mildly embarrassing for Reeves but no more than that). Bad landlords will carry on as they were.
In short, this is expensive and ineffective and hits the law-abiding not the dodgy landlords
You need a mix of both sale and rental properties to cater to families who don't want to buy or can't afford to buy, especially those who must be more mobile.
So I expect these measures to both depress the supply of rental homes and homes more broadly.
Much of the tax problems around NHS pensions were down to the way that the Annual Allowance was calculated, potentially causing marginal rates of over 100%.
I don't particularly want to retire completely yet, but some of the potential changes could bring forward my plans.
If people are to be expected to save for their retirement they need long term consistency. It doesnt look like we will get it.
It's a travesty Osborne didn't deal with it when he could.
Lowering the additional rate start point below £125,140 to say £110,000 without adjusting the personal allowance taper would create an extremely high marginal rate of 67.5% from in this case £110,000 to £125,140. She could of course avoid that by lowering the personal allowance withdrawal start point from £100,000 to say £80,000!
The personal allowance taper will never be removed. It raises too much money and from a political viewpoint only affects a few perceived to be wealthy people.
This means if you are moving from one principal residence to another (ie its part of your life setup) then it’s tax free. But if you downsize / crystallise the gains and use the money for anything else then that portion of the proceeds is treated like any other investment.
IIRC there’s 1.6m earning over £100k, there’s probably another couple of million earning more than £80k, that’s roughly the 90th percentile.
May be he wasn’t housing minister?
Edit: must have misremembered his role unless he had some housing responsibility on Ilford council
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/30/labour-mp-accused-of-renting-out-ant-infested-flats-with-black-mould
We simply need a brave politician to make the case.
They can - possibly - make the argument that it was far worse than they first realised and they have no choice. It would have been better last summer but maybe they can still get away with it. Otherwise we’ll be having the same conversation next year and the year after
So, just 12 years in the role and you've easily doubled your state pension and some. And you'd probably achieve that in less than 10.
Totally different to DB pensions in the private sector.
Oops. No he didn't. Argh.