Will the chancellor cane house owners in the budget?

Page 12 of 16  


is a vote for Labour - think about it (hint: splitting the opposition vote)
--
Andrew

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree. The job of local and central gummint these days seems to be dedicated to squeezing more and more money out of the proles..... either as a hidden under- tax, or by a method that can be spun to look politically acceptible (and if a pollie stands up on his hind legs and utters the phrase "User Pays" one more time, I'll bloody well throttle him.... the Users have already paid, and paid, and paid.... all their working lives).
Note that there is no corresponding improvement in services. The extra money is required to keep them all in the style to which they have become accustomed, and to fund all those index-linked pensions.
Rant over.
--
Tony Williams.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But arguably there is a problem here. When there were rumours of CGT on houses the economics editor of 'The Business' wrote a piece about how hundreds of thousands of homeowners would risk being left destitute by such a tax. I wrote to him berating him for his Daily Mail shock-horror style and pointing out that if your property hadn't gained in value you wouldn't have any tax to pay, and if it had you still kept most of the gain, and got the very reasoned reply back that the real problem was that loads of people had taken out further borrowings against the perceived equity in their properties which they would not be able to repay if their gains were taxed.
Most commentators seem to agree that it is all this borrowing against house price increases that has kept the economy buoyant, but one cannot but help feel that at some point we will have to pay the price. And of course all those who borrowed to the hilt rather than taking advantage of low interest rates to clear their debts will be demanding that the government does something whilst arguably it should have acted while we were all having a good time - but who wants to spoil a party with warnings about hangovers?
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[13 lines snipped]

And the Government should do then what it should do now.
Nothing.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

during earlier housing booms, namely the buy-to-let mortgage for which you do not need to proof of income. I imagine one area where flash gordon will look is the practise where someone has 20 buy-to-let properties but actually lives in one, paying a peppercorn rent but able to claim generous tax benefits, and then able to pocket 40,000 tax free before CGT kicks in. As soon as the US elections are over this November, expect the USD to recover fairly quickly as US interest rates start their upward journey.
--
Andrew

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:17:45 +0000, Andrew

Er, what crime has been committed in this practice?
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A neighbour has a very nice well located right in front of the woods, 3 bed house. It was fine with one kiddie then another comes. Being an accountant he calculated it would be cheaper to extend on the back than go for a bigger house because of stamp duty ect. They would also find it difficult to get a house in such a good location too. The extension is to "!their" design too. Apart from the building mess, it appears a win, win situation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking some of the heat out of the property market.
Julian
--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[17 lines snipped]

I mean, Ghod forbid that the Little People should become (gasp) capitalists.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10 Feb 2004 11:43:53 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

... in the current, debased, interpretation of the word "capitalist".
Contrary to the belief of the (post) Thatcher generation, capitalism is *not* about watching the value of your house grow while you scratch your arse, nor is it about making quick, obscene profits by buying and selling shares, currencies, or commodities on the London markets.
--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hardly. All I am talking about is the private ownership of capital. Neither debased nor current.

Profits are not and cannot be "obscene". Your bigotry is showing.

I'm afraid I see nothing wrong with any of that.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10 Feb 2004 12:17:21 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

My understanding of "capitalism", as used in classical economics, is that it is about the *use* of capital to support business and industry: not the accrual of value in bricks and mortar.

They can: is it not obscene that "designer" clothes are sold at immense profit to their designers/marketers while they are made by workers in third world countries for poverty-level wages? Is it not obscene that city traders can take 6- or 7- figure bonuses while the rest of us are told that "the value of shares can go up or down" as our pensions, endowments, and savings take yet another hit? Is it not obscene that capital is often available only to businesses that can convince the bankers controlling the capital (controlling, note, its never *their* money) that the company to be invested in can be sold on at a profit in 36 months -- sod ideas like investing in a *product* or in *people* for a slow but long term return.
Julian
--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Or a top company head has a golden parachute. the SKB head is better off being totally incompetence, as he will make more money being paid off. What pissed me off yesterday is that a prescription drug I got from the chemist has they name on, so I/we pay for this incompetence and "greed".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

In those cases it isn't the profit that is obscene, but instead the corporate modus operandi. A profit of 80% is just that. The point of contention should be how the company has conducted itself in order to generate those profits.
Cheers Clive
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[25 lines snipped]

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
It's obscene that Gordon Brown thinks he can run my life better than I can.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Huge wrote in message ...

Agreed! and capital flows to where the best profits can be generated. That is certainly not in the UK! The idea that you can manipulate a production market on anything but a short term basis is a fallacy.Why we still produce steel is beyond my understanding, apart from a defence requirement. Brown's energy taxes will soon remove that part of the economy and much else. The legacy of the Brown years will be vastly increased taxation, lost productive jobs and IOM wild inflation. The present economy to my mind resembles a sand castle, which will be swept away when the tide comes in. The unemployment levels in Scotland and Wales are already looking pretty sick as a result of his policies. Why do you think that the RMT in Scotland want to join the Scottish Socialist party?
Regards Capitol
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11 Feb 2004 11:51:21 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

Actually I think you are in error on one count - MPs are always thinking about their old age and pensions. Don't forget they voted themselves a 25% increase paid for from public funds not so long ago.
However I don't see this as a Labour-only problem. They are all at it with their snout in the trough.
PoP
Sending email to my published email address isn't guaranteed to reach me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I meant IMM, not MPs. But you're right.

Absolutely. I see very little difference between any of them.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:34:29 +0000, Julian Fowler

So, if another carpetbagger succeeds next time in demutualising Standard Life or Nationwide and your shares or policies suddenly paid you a huge bonus out of the blue, you'd say, "No, thanks! Don't need it!"
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In the long term probably not needed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.