Will the chancellor cane house owners in the budget?

In article , IMM writes

That's socialism for you. Now if they had only privatised it a few years ago ....

IMM who do you think is responsible for the filthy state of LU ?. Is it all those 'Middle Englanders' who chuck their Daily Mails and FT's on the floor ?

  1. Phoneys bedrock supporters travelling from their socialist-provided ghettos to their drug dealing patches (having jumped the barriers of course).
  2. The tidal army of tourists and other non-resident people, leaving litter, carving graffiti on the glass, spitting chewing gum.
  3. The fact that Underground is 'run' and 'cleaned/maintained' by residents of nearby relevant LU termini (now I wonder who they could be).
Reply to
Andrew
Loading thread data ...

In article , IMM writes

Along with Austin Maxis, Morris Marinas, and Austin Allegros presumably.

Reply to
Andrew

Not true. The main driving force now is a feature that wasn't around 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.

Reply to
Andrew

In article , Huge writes

New Labour do - they have made it much easier to go bankrupt and wipe the slate clean (only 12 months now) - leaving everyone else to pick up their share of the 'debt'.

Reply to
Andrew

In article , Tony Bryer writes

Including the seller. They could help first time buyers 'at a stroke' by transferring stamp duty from the buyer to the vendor. This would have the added advantage of getting some money back from non-dom property owners who are exempt from CGT even if the latter was extended to the main residence. It would also claw back more from people selling their overpriced london piles and moving out the 'country'.

Reply to
Andrew

In message , Andrew writes

You spelt Allaggro incorrectly there

Reply to
geoff

My garden shed is up on Heathrow. Even Stanstead is up on Heathrow. Only Gatwick and the whole of the US air system us behind it !

Reply to
G&M

Absolutely! I do tend to the idea that really massive change only comes about after a revolution or defeat (France and Germany respectively). But what we are doing in Britain is continually changing things because we don't know how, or haven't the will, to make what we already have work properly. The latest crazy idea from the chief crazies in Whitehall and Westminster is to scrap A-levels and GCSEs and replace them with "diplomas". Any problems with A-levels are therefore deemed unfixable, despite the fact that we have had the A-level system in the UK for years, and the only way to fix them is, apparently, to scrap them. Think of the enormous cost the new diplomas will incur! Armies of extra public servants will be recruited to shift mountains for new forms, the new plans will take years to bed down and become as widely understood in industry as A-levels are today, and then, if and when, the diplomas start to become effective, some future government will decide it's time for a change again because problems have been found and deemed to be unfixable.

The only way to stop this kind of ridiculous dogma is to cut off its air supply.

MM

Reply to
Mike Mitchell

Yes, it is! The UK is unique certainly within Europe. I reckon we have the highest number of records in the lowest categories of achievement.

MM

Reply to
Mike Mitchell

Er, what crime has been committed in this practice?

MM

Reply to
Mike Mitchell

Any nonsense like this, and the vendors (who hold all the cards 'cos they are the ones with the property!) will simply push the prices up further. If I know I'm going to have to pay 5% to somebody to buy my property, then I'm dreadfully sorry and all that, but the price is now

5% higher, okay? And because there is a dearth of new housing yet the demand is so stong (January increase: 2.2%), I'll have you by the short and curlies more firmly than ever! Yippee! Thank God for bricks and mortar!

MM

Reply to
Mike Mitchell

I suspect that the reality is that this is a way to obfuscate the steadily declining standards in education.

THe goal posts of the existing system have been moved to the point that they are off the pitch and in the crowd; therefore the time has come to move to a different pitch and play a different game.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in each country.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

"Mike Mitchell" wrote | >>But it would be easier just to charge everyone 5% | >Including the seller. They could help first time buyers 'at | >a stroke' by transferring stamp duty from the buyer to the | >vendor. | Any nonsense like this, and the vendors (who hold all the cards | 'cos they are the ones with the property!) will simply push the | prices up further. If I know I'm going to have to pay 5% to | somebody to buy my property, then I'm dreadfully sorry and | all that, but the price is now 5% higher, okay? And because | there is a dearth of new housing yet the demand is so stong | (January increase: 2.2%), I'll have you by the short and curlies | more firmly than ever! Yippee! Thank God for bricks and mortar!

What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from CGT and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value per annum equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain in value above tax-free gain taxed at 80%.

So if bank base rate is 10% a property bought for 50k would have tax-free gain to 80k in 5 years. If it was put on the market at 100k the vendor would get 84k after the 80% marginal tax on 100k minus 80k.

The market would not stand that house being sold for 180k with 80k going in tax for the vendor to receive 100k current value. There would be little incentive for vendors to inflate prices because a large part of the gain would go in tax. Moreover, the concept of borrowing huge amounts of money to buy a house anticipating high gains in value would fail, so people would incur less debt burden, less capital would be tied up in the inflexible and unproductive property market and people could return to the concept of

*saving before* buying a house rather than payng back afterwards. Other forms of investment would look more attractive against property, releasing capital for business investment, and the gap in property values between different parts of the country would be brought closer to previous values. There would also be some compensation to periods of high interest rates because they would result in a higher tax allowance in the longer term.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

Yes, why should those damn property owners make any money? Take it off them! Confiscate it!

Why not just confiscate all the property in the country and have the Government own it? And while you're about it, you could confiscate all the businesses, too.

Then we could all live in a festering shithole like Soviet era Eastern Europe.

Reply to
Huge

Hmm.. Inheritance tax is iniquitous enough as it is without removing exemptions. The notion of 80% tax on anything is not likely to be popularly received.

Interesting idea, but this leaves me wondering how do we get there from here? This would have to be tapered in some way, and how would the issue of loss of money be handled?

Business investment is a useful thing, although there is the perception that it is high risk and that property is "safe" in the long term. Not entirely true, but it is what most people believe. That in itself influences market behaviour,.

I am not sure what benefit there is in reducing the gap in property values other than to promote mobility, but there are other ways to do that.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

"Andy Hall" wrote | "Owain" wrote: | >What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from | >CGT and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value | >per annum equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain | >in value above tax-free gain taxed at 80%. | Hmm.. Inheritance tax is iniquitous enough as it is without removing | exemptions.

I think much of the iniquity of inheritance tax is because of the exemptions. Actually, my "bright idea" (ill-considered off-the-cuff disjointed thinking :-) could replace much of IHT because for many the rampantly-inflated house value is the major asset bequeathed.

| The notion of 80% tax on anything is not likely to be | popularly received.

Perhaps it could be justified in some way on environmental (like fuel) or health (like tobacco and alcohol) grounds. The tax raised could be earmarked for providing affordable rented and community self-build projects in those same areas where property prices have risen the most.

As for tapering it in, retrospective application of legislation is usually a poor proposal, so a 'back date' could be set ie only growth in value after that date was taxable, chosen to be approximately equivalent to the current tax burden but rising year on year (and without the government having to increase any rate or threshold).

Anyway, it's a marginal rate, in the example I gave it equals a tax of 32% on the overall growth or 16% on the curent market value, which compares fairly with general income tax rates or even 17.5% VAT. It would apply mostly to those who have a grossly-inflated house value through artificial market conditions, although some fixer-uppers could also get hit. I'd help them by allowing full VAT relief on restoration to habitatable condition of derelict property without having to do the existing demolish/rebuild cycle.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

The French baccalaureate is superior. We should go that way, and what I see is that the new proposal is not far off.

Reply to
IMM

One place in each city/conorbation? Please.

Reply to
IMM

Scum, the lot of them.

< snip drivel >
Reply to
IMM

HomeOwnersHub website 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.