That really is rubbish. For the individual buyer trying to scrape together a deposit and pay his or her very modest and reasonable legal fees it will make a big difference even if has a modest effect in macro terms.
There's also a difference between a cash gain and a paper gain.
I disagree. I reckon austerity has had a larger effect on the flattening of growth than Brexit has. And I'd argue - from a traditional dry-economic viewpoint - that austerity has been entirely necessary.
Remain predicted enormous upheaval, directly after the vote. It hasn't happened. So ordinary people (like me*), who don't know economic shit from dirty clay, were braced for the worst only to be left pretty bemused by the hyperbole. We were told by the PM, the Chancellor and every economic figure of importance that we would be worse off. But again, it didn't and hasn't happened.
*I'm as ordinary as you can get. Since June 2016 I'm £4200 a year better off (salary alone). The company I work for is on for a record year (we are printers - a tough trade). My mortgage is lower than it was. Houses are selling like hot-cakes on the estate I live on (in South Wales). And here's the kicker: I'm involved in valleys rugby, proper blue collar stuff. In recent years it's been difficult to help the (pretty poorly educated) young lads into jobs, but this season we found jobs for the six boys who needed work immediately. All of them are in trades, and all are coining it in. Indeed, a young electrician we helped into work a few years back told me recently he's been bringing home £800 a week!
At my level, the lower working class level, things are doing okay.
1. Remain predicted a year long recession. We have not had any recession. 2. Remain predicted an immediate interest rate spike hitting mortgages. Mortgage rates went down and have now returned to the previous level. 3. Remain said jobs would be hit. Unemployment has fallen. 4. Remain said "every" households would be "worse off". Household income has continued to grow.
It's no use Remainers now trying to claim something else was said. Everything is online.
Meanwhile, more money is being allocated this year to Brexit preparations than to the NHS. Not so snappy for bus messaging.
The saddest thing has been the visceral desperation with which Remainers have opposed Brexit. Their desire to promote bad news and heighten anxiety, however tenuously linked to Brexit, has been incredibly counter-productive.
Will this bollocks ever stop?
If a Mother warns her child not to touch the hot stove, and the the child then touches it, does the child blame the Mother for wanting them to burn themselves?
Narrating the shambles of Brexit =/= wishing it so
Agree with all of that. Though it won't stop the spin on here. Wealthy, educated metropolitans never enjoy admitting to provincial hicks that they were wrong.
Bollocks argument. Totally spurious.
I was slightly tongue-in-cheek, given the Brexit tit-for-tat that's taken place on here for the last 18 months
Local authorities up and down the country are now borrowing in order to speculate in the commercial property market, hoping to earn a return greater than the interest cost in order to sustain their spending as their government grants are cut.
Yet they remain restricted from borrowing to invest in residential property and social housing, despite the government's declared desire to get house building moving. I didn't hear the Chancellor say anything about this at all.
The saddest thing has been the visceral desperation with which Remainers have opposed Brexit. Their desire to promote bad news and heighten anxiety, however tenuously linked to Brexit, has been incredibly counter-productive.
Will this bollocks ever stop?
If a Mother warns her child not to touch the hot stove, and the the child then touches it, does the child blame the Mother for wanting them to burn themselves?
Narrating the shambles of Brexit =/= wishing it so
The decision was taken a long time ago - it would be more constructive to look for the best solution under the constraint of that decision than for some to keep trying to tie every potential bad story to Brexit, or to give credence to every scare story that appears in the FT.
The saddest thing has been the visceral desperation with which Remainers have opposed Brexit. Their desire to promote bad news and heighten anxiety, however tenuously linked to Brexit, has been incredibly counter-productive.
Will this bollocks ever stop?
If a Mother warns her child not to touch the hot stove, and the the child then touches it, does the child blame the Mother for wanting them to burn themselves?
Narrating the shambles of Brexit =/= wishing it so
The decision was taken a long time ago - it would be more constructive to look for the best solution under the constraint of that decision than for some to keep trying to tie every potential bad story to Brexit, or to give credence to every scare story that appears in the FT.
That decision is not a constraint unless you think it means we have ceased to be a democracy.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
My other half is a first time buyer, but she's buying with me - and I'm a seller & second time buyer.
Hmm...
She buys 100% based on a loan from you.
She then transfers a 50% interest to you in an unconnected transaction. You just have to pay duty on the second transaction
And that would be tax avoidence.
I love the fact that less than an hour after the news, people are already thinking up tax loopholes related to this latest change.
It really does serve as a powerful demonstration of how captialism works in practice, of how governments inadvertently create perverse financial incentives, and most of all, how resilient money is to being taxed.
I often liken it to water, it flows in one direction and will pour out through any hole it finds. It explains quite neatly why, without imposing capital controls, Corbynism simply wouldn't work.
Agree with all of that. Though it won't stop the spin on here. Wealthy, educated metropolitans never enjoy admitting to provincial hicks that they were wrong.
Bollocks argument. Totally spurious.
I was slightly tongue-in-cheek, given the Brexit tit-for-tat that's taken place on here for the last 18 months
The saddest thing has been the visceral desperation with which Remainers have opposed Brexit. Their desire to promote bad news and heighten anxiety, however tenuously linked to Brexit, has been incredibly counter-productive.
Will this bollocks ever stop?
If a Mother warns her child not to touch the hot stove, and the the child then touches it, does the child blame the Mother for wanting them to burn themselves?
Narrating the shambles of Brexit =/= wishing it so
The decision was taken a long time ago - it would be more constructive to look for the best solution under the constraint of that decision than for some to keep trying to tie every potential bad story to Brexit, or to give credence to every scare story that appears in the FT.
That decision is not a constraint unless you think it means we have ceased to be a democracy.
It's not a constraint, but the method of trying to overturn it has been to try and talk down any chances of it being a success - something that tends to be self fulfilling at times. But that alone won't reverse the decision, you would need to change minds. That could only be achieved by reforming the EU, and getting a proper settlement with it that is a positive for the UK in the eyes of most of the electorate.
Remain is still fighting the first campaign - it's all negative. That didn't work then, and it won;t change anything now. People respond to a positive message.
The saddest thing has been the visceral desperation with which Remainers have opposed Brexit. Their desire to promote bad news and heighten anxiety, however tenuously linked to Brexit, has been incredibly counter-productive.
Will this bollocks ever stop?
If a Mother warns her child not to touch the hot stove, and the the child then touches it, does the child blame the Mother for wanting them to burn themselves?
Narrating the shambles of Brexit =/= wishing it so
The disasters you predicted haven't happened and aren't predicted to happen. That's the long and the short of it. Whether or not Brexit voters were wise or completely unwise to vote to leave the EU is not going to be proved to them by an economic prediction... (and that's all it is, 'an economic prediction'... because who is to argue the original predictions were correct*) that GDP will drop by £40bn over the next five years. Ordinary voters won't even notice that, and I am 100% sure that if the UK gets through this whole Brexit thing with a marginal loss of short-term GDP the Brexiteers will feel vindicated.
*This 'predicted' drop in GDP is, by the way, a drop in the ocean compared to the drop in GDP that occurred under Gordon Brown's reign.
Roughly a quarter of the reduction is in reduced "dwellings investment" . . . so where is this £44bn and the money for the 300,000 new homes etc going if not dwellings?
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions: The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
No, it shaves it off the deposit - as stamp duty can't be amortised over the lifetime of a mortgage. The Gov't wants its cash on completion.
I disagree. I reckon austerity has had a larger effect on the flattening of growth than Brexit has. And I'd argue - from a traditional dry-economic viewpoint - that austerity has been entirely necessary.
Remain predicted enormous upheaval, directly after the vote. It hasn't happened. So ordinary people (like me*), who don't know economic shit from dirty clay, were braced for the worst only to be left pretty bemused by the hyperbole. We were told by the PM, the Chancellor and every economic figure of importance that we would be worse off. But again, it didn't and hasn't happened.
*I'm as ordinary as you can get. Since June 2016 I'm £4200 a year better off (salary alone). The company I work for is on for a record year (we are printers - a tough trade). My mortgage is lower than it was. Houses are selling like hot-cakes on the estate I live on (in South Wales). And here's the kicker: I'm involved in valleys rugby, proper blue collar stuff. In recent years it's been difficult to help the (pretty poorly educated) young lads into jobs, but this season we found jobs for the six boys who needed work immediately. All of them are in trades, and all are coining it in. Indeed, a young electrician we helped into work a few years back told me recently he's been bringing home £800 a week!
At my level, the lower working class level, things are doing okay.
1. Remain predicted a year long recession. We have not had any recession. 2. Remain predicted an immediate interest rate spike hitting mortgages. Mortgage rates went down and have now returned to the previous level. 3. Remain said jobs would be hit. Unemployment has fallen. 4. Remain said "every" households would be "worse off". Household income has continued to grow.
It's no use Remainers now trying to claim something else was said. Everything is online.
Meanwhile, more money is being allocated this year to Brexit preparations than to the NHS. Not so snappy for bus messaging.
My other half is a first time buyer, but she's buying with me - and I'm a seller & second time buyer.
Hmm...
She buys 100% based on a loan from you.
She then transfers a 50% interest to you in an unconnected transaction. You just have to pay duty on the second transaction
And that would be tax avoidence.
I love the fact that less than an hour after the news, people are already thinking up tax loopholes related to this latest change.
It really does serve as a powerful demonstration of how captialism works in practice, of how governments inadvertently create perverse financial incentives, and most of all, how resilient money is to being taxed.
I often liken it to water, it flows in one direction and will pour out through any hole it finds. It explains quite neatly why, without imposing capital controls, Corbynism simply wouldn't work.
You mean Corbynism is the Confucianism to free market capitalism's Daoism?
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
No, it shaves it off the deposit - as stamp duty can't be amortised over the lifetime of a mortgage. The Gov't wants its cash on completion.
Are you sure? The total cost of the purchase is £X, including all the taxes and fees, and the buyers only have £Y in the bank. The difference £X - £Y becomes the mortgage. I don't see how removing the tax does anything to help the first time buyer(s) save the deposit.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
No, its cash they have to find at the time of purchase. Hence the relevance of the deposit.
The saddest thing has been the visceral desperation with which Remainers have opposed Brexit. Their desire to promote bad news and heighten anxiety, however tenuously linked to Brexit, has been incredibly counter-productive.
Will this bollocks ever stop?
If a Mother warns her child not to touch the hot stove, and the the child then touches it, does the child blame the Mother for wanting them to burn themselves?
Narrating the shambles of Brexit =/= wishing it so
The disasters you predicted haven't happened and aren't predicted to happen. That's the long and the short of it. Whether or not Brexit voters were wise or completely unwise to vote to leave the EU is not going to be proved to them by an economic prediction... (and that's all it is, 'an economic prediction'... because who is to argue the original predictions were correct*) that GDP will drop by £40bn over the next five years. Ordinary voters won't even notice that, and I am 100% sure that if the UK gets through this whole Brexit thing with a marginal loss of short-term GDP the Brexiteers will feel vindicated.
*This 'predicted' drop in GDP is, by the way, a drop in the ocean compared to the drop in GDP that occurred under Gordon Brown's reign.
GDP increased significantly during Gordon Brown's "reign" as Chancellor/Prime Minister. If you are talking about the worldwide recession of 2008-12, I don't think even Gordon Brown takes responsibility for that! Nevertheless the predicted relative contraction of GDP is the same for the Credit Crunch and Brexit, albeit the second is over a longer period. The difference is that we voted for the Brexit relative contraction.
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions: The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
I just think you will need to be careful round the corners as Robin Reliants are notoriously unstable.
My other half is a first time buyer, but she's buying with me - and I'm a seller & second time buyer.
Hmm...
She buys 100% based on a loan from you.
She then transfers a 50% interest to you in an unconnected transaction. You just have to pay duty on the second transaction
And that would be tax avoidence.
I love the fact that less than an hour after the news, people are already thinking up tax loopholes related to this latest change.
It really does serve as a powerful demonstration of how captialism works in practice, of how governments inadvertently create perverse financial incentives, and most of all, how resilient money is to being taxed.
I often liken it to water, it flows in one direction and will pour out through any hole it finds. It explains quite neatly why, without imposing capital controls, Corbynism simply wouldn't work.
You mean Corbynism is the Confucianism to free market capitalism's Daoism?
Hah! I hadn't thought of it that way before. Very good
The Tao Te Ching will be flying off the shelves when the Momentum lot arrive...
Simon Jack question - nationalisation will deter future private investment which economy desperately needs.
This is the sort of line we will surely see at next GE (whereas nothing was said at last GE).
The difficulty is that Br*x*t is likely to deter future private investment, or at least future FDI so it will be a tricky message for the Cons to finesse.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
No, it shaves it off the deposit - as stamp duty can't be amortised over the lifetime of a mortgage. The Gov't wants its cash on completion.
Are you sure? The total cost of the purchase is £X, including all the taxes and fees, and the buyers only have £Y in the bank. The difference £X - £Y becomes the mortgage. I don't see how removing the tax does anything to help the first time buyer(s) save the deposit.
The bank only lends based on the value of the house and the deposit is a percentage of the value of the house. Additional taxes and fees aren't included in £X.
EG house is valued at £300,000 and you can get a mortgage so long as you have a 10% deposit. The stamp duty would be £5,000 and so you would need savings of £35,000 currently (£30k for the house deposit, £5,000 for stamp duty).
In the event that stamp duty is abolished then even if the full stamp duty amount goes into the value of the home then the house is now valued at £305,000 and deposit required would be £30,500. Deposit required has come down by £4,500!
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions: The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
I just think you will need to be careful round the corners as Robin Reliants are notoriously unstable.
I'll bear it in mind. If our long term economic plan (otherwise known as the lottery) finally comes good I'll treat myself to a Jag.
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions: The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
Not worth the Germans offering us a deal if you won't buy their cars!
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions: The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
Not worth the Germans offering us a deal if you won't buy their cars!
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions: The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
I just think you will need to be careful round the corners as Robin Reliants are notoriously unstable.
I'll bear it in mind. If our long term economic plan (otherwise known as the lottery) finally comes good I'll treat myself to a Jag.
The saddest thing has been the visceral desperation with which Remainers have opposed Brexit. Their desire to promote bad news and heighten anxiety, however tenuously linked to Brexit, has been incredibly counter-productive.
Will this bollocks ever stop?
If a Mother warns her child not to touch the hot stove, and the the child then touches it, does the child blame the Mother for wanting them to burn themselves?
Narrating the shambles of Brexit =/= wishing it so
The disasters you predicted haven't happened and aren't predicted to happen. That's the long and the short of it. Whether or not Brexit voters were wise or completely unwise to vote to leave the EU is not going to be proved to them by an economic prediction... (and that's all it is, 'an economic prediction'... because who is to argue the original predictions were correct*) that GDP will drop by £40bn over the next five years. Ordinary voters won't even notice that, and I am 100% sure that if the UK gets through this whole Brexit thing with a marginal loss of short-term GDP the Brexiteers will feel vindicated.
*This 'predicted' drop in GDP is, by the way, a drop in the ocean compared to the drop in GDP that occurred under Gordon Brown's reign.
GDP increased significantly during Gordon Brown's "reign" as Chancellor/Prime Minister. If you are talking about the worldwide recession of 2008-12, I don't think even Gordon Brown takes responsibility for that! Nevertheless the predicted relative contraction of GDP is the same for the Credit Crunch and Brexit, albeit the second is over a longer period. The difference is that we voted for the Brexit relative contraction.
GDP fell by 4% in 2008 against Brown's predictions of 3% growth. Whether it was anything to do with Brown or not - and you appear to be one of his supporters - that's a 7% swing in one year.
Even if UK GDP falls by the predicted 6.2% by 2030, it's still less of a fall than was sustained in one year in 2008.
I'm not having a dig here. I'm pretty phlegmatic about Brexit. I'm just pointing out that I thought things would be a lot worse. Twitter got to me. The vehemence of the Remain camp got to me. I anticipated a major slowdown and a recession.
Instead of that, I'm personally a lot better off. Of course, my personal circumstance has no correlation with Brexit, but my current situation and that of the wider economy is far better than I imagined it would be... so it feels like a double bonus.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
It doesn't shave anything of their mortgage. The money that would have bee spent on stamp duty now goes to a higher offer price.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
GDP fell by 4% in 2008 against Brown's predictions of 3% growth. Whether it was anything to do with Brown or not - and you appear to be one of his supporters - that's a 7% swing in one year.
Even if UK GDP falls by the predicted 6.2% by 2030, it's still less of a fall than was sustained in one year in 2008.
I'm not having a dig here. I'm pretty phlegmatic about Brexit. I'm just pointing out that I thought things would be a lot worse. Twitter got to me. The vehemence of the Remain camp got to me. I anticipated a major slowdown and a recession.
Instead of that, I'm personally a lot better off. Of course, my personal circumstance has no correlation with Brexit, but my current situation and that of the wider economy is far better than I imagined it would be... so it feels like a double bonus.
Fair point on the numbers. The Credit Crunch was worse than Brexit is predicted to be in relative terms. The fact remains that Brexit is economic dislocation that we actually voted for, while the Credit Crunch was something that happened to us. It matters.
Edit. The 6% degradation quoted was the Treasury prediction from before the referendum. The implied degradation is now predicted to be higher.
GDP fell by 4% in 2008 against Brown's predictions of 3% growth. Whether it was anything to do with Brown or not - and you appear to be one of his supporters - that's a 7% swing in one year.
Even if UK GDP falls by the predicted 6.2% by 2030, it's still less of a fall than was sustained in one year in 2008.
I'm not having a dig here. I'm pretty phlegmatic about Brexit. I'm just pointing out that I thought things would be a lot worse. Twitter got to me. The vehemence of the Remain camp got to me. I anticipated a major slowdown and a recession.
Instead of that, I'm personally a lot better off. Of course, my personal circumstance has no correlation with Brexit, but my current situation and that of the wider economy is far better than I imagined it would be... so it feels like a double bonus.
Fair point on the numbers. The Credit Crunch was worse than Brexit is predicted to be in relative terms. The fact remains that Brexit is economic dislocation that we actually voted for, while the Credit Crunch is something that happened to us. It matters.
And perhaps what matters even more is that the credit crunch was global, but Brexit is not.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
It doesn't shave anything of their mortgage. The money that would have bee spent on stamp duty now goes to a higher offer price.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
The purpose is to shave it off their deposit not their mortgage! It does dramatically shave their deposit requirements which is the purpose.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
It doesn't shave anything of their mortgage. The money that would have bee spent on stamp duty now goes to a higher offer price.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
The purpose is to shave it off their deposit not their mortgage! It does dramatically shave their deposit requirements which is the purpose.
GDP fell by 4% in 2008 against Brown's predictions of 3% growth. Whether it was anything to do with Brown or not - and you appear to be one of his supporters - that's a 7% swing in one year.
Even if UK GDP falls by the predicted 6.2% by 2030, it's still less of a fall than was sustained in one year in 2008.
I'm not having a dig here. I'm pretty phlegmatic about Brexit. I'm just pointing out that I thought things would be a lot worse. Twitter got to me. The vehemence of the Remain camp got to me. I anticipated a major slowdown and a recession.
Instead of that, I'm personally a lot better off. Of course, my personal circumstance has no correlation with Brexit, but my current situation and that of the wider economy is far better than I imagined it would be... so it feels like a double bonus.
Fair point on the numbers. The Credit Crunch was worse than Brexit is predicted to be in relative terms. The fact remains that Brexit is economic dislocation that we actually voted for, while the Credit Crunch is something that happened to us. It matters.
Yes, agreed that any pain will be self-inflicted.
I'm fascinated to see how it will all pan out. The political/philosophical territory between the Remain and Leave camps has been so fiercely fought over. Will there be any clear winner? Perhaps not... and I think the Remainers will be disappointed with that.
As it currently stands I think the Brexit camp will feel more vindicated than the Remainers. But like Ian said below, the skies could yet fall in.
GDP fell by 4% in 2008 against Brown's predictions of 3% growth. Whether it was anything to do with Brown or not - and you appear to be one of his supporters - that's a 7% swing in one year.
Even if UK GDP falls by the predicted 6.2% by 2030, it's still less of a fall than was sustained in one year in 2008.
I'm not having a dig here. I'm pretty phlegmatic about Brexit. I'm just pointing out that I thought things would be a lot worse. Twitter got to me. The vehemence of the Remain camp got to me. I anticipated a major slowdown and a recession.
Instead of that, I'm personally a lot better off. Of course, my personal circumstance has no correlation with Brexit, but my current situation and that of the wider economy is far better than I imagined it would be... so it feels like a double bonus.
Fair point on the numbers. The Credit Crunch was worse than Brexit is predicted to be in relative terms. The fact remains that Brexit is economic dislocation that we actually voted for, while the Credit Crunch is something that happened to us. It matters.
And perhaps what matters even more is that the credit crunch was global, but Brexit is not.
So global that Australia grew by 3% in 2008 while we contracted by 4%.
It's depressing that people like James Kirkup are so out of touch. If you continue to view every aspect of Brexit through GDP then I guess you'll spend the rest of your years angry like some posters on PB. The economic catastrophe has clearly not even come close to being realised 18 months on, despite the willing of some how long do we have to wait?
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
It doesn't shave anything of their mortgage. The money that would have bee spent on stamp duty now goes to a higher offer price.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
The purpose is to shave it off their deposit not their mortgage! It does dramatically shave their deposit requirements which is the purpose.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
The Government could match what first time buyers save for their deposits as well, pound for pound, up to a maximum of £15k in the special ISAs Osborne announced a couple of years ago. Prob cost about £3bn per year.
That would give every FTB a 10% deposit for a £300k house, and be doing no more than what middle-class parents do. Would cover most 2 bed-flats and houses in the south-east.
Saving £250 a month for 6 years from age 21-27 gets you there (reasonable) and covers legal/moving fees.
The only remaining issue would then be salary affordability in borrowing up to £270k. On 5 x single salary, you'd need £54k. If young couple were earning £25k and £29k each, assuming you can borrow 2 x double (and I don't see why not) you could do it, and that would also seem reasonable.
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions: The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
I just think you will need to be careful round the corners as Robin Reliants are notoriously unstable.
I'll bear it in mind. If our long term economic plan (otherwise known as the lottery) finally comes good I'll treat myself to a Jag.
Make sure it's fit for the future.
That’s really tricky. I have a diesel. Obviously I won’t have another one. I do a lot of miles. Really not sure about a hybrid. I fear the current generation of hybrids/ electric cars might age very badly as the technology improves and becomes standard. It makes me very nervous about buying and the new car sales suggests I am not alone.
I don't know why everyone is getting so excited about the OBR figures (well, actually, I do - Brexit innit) but it's licking your finger and sticking it in the air stuff.
No-one has a clue as to what growth will be in the next few years, including the OBR, but it has to base its forecasts on something.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
Every problem has to have a solution which rewards the tory client vote, or at least doesn't impact them.
Personally I'm not too bothered by the stamp duty stuff though. It's all a bit meh.
I don't generally like transaction taxes - IMO, it would be much better to charge an annual lvt, or a proper council/property tax which would stop freehold land/residential property in the UK (particularly SE England) being used as a store of tax-free wealth/viable mechanism for IHT avoidance.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
The Government could match what first time buyers save for their deposits as well, pound for pound, up to a maximum of £15k in the special ISAs Osborne announced a couple of years ago. Prob cost about £3bn per year.
That would give every FTB a 10% deposit for a £300k house, and be doing no more than what middle-class parents do. Would cover most 2 bed-flats and houses in the south-east.
Saving £250 a month for 6 years from age 21-27 gets you there (reasonable) and covers legal/moving fees.
The only remaining issue would then be salary affordability in borrowing up to £270k. On 5 x single salary, you'd need £54k. If young couple were earning £25k and £29k each, assuming you can borrow 2 x double (and I don't see why not) you could do it, and that would also seem reasonable.
London would remain a problem.
That's an exceedingly good idea.
However it would quickly be portrayed by opponents as a middle-class bung (neatly ignoring the fact that people of all walks of life generally want to own property), "money paid to people who are well off enough to save, when we should be taking that money and giving it to people who don't have enough to survive, let alone save..."
GDP fell by 4% in 2008 against Brown's predictions of 3% growth. Whether it was anything to do with Brown or not - and you appear to be one of his supporters - that's a 7% swing in one year.
Even if UK GDP falls by the predicted 6.2% by 2030, it's still less of a fall than was sustained in one year in 2008.
I'm not having a dig here. I'm pretty phlegmatic about Brexit. I'm just pointing out that I thought things would be a lot worse. Twitter got to me. The vehemence of the Remain camp got to me. I anticipated a major slowdown and a recession.
Instead of that, I'm personally a lot better off. Of course, my personal circumstance has no correlation with Brexit, but my current situation and that of the wider economy is far better than I imagined it would be... so it feels like a double bonus.
Fair point on the numbers. The Credit Crunch was worse than Brexit is predicted to be in relative terms. The fact remains that Brexit is economic dislocation that we actually voted for, while the Credit Crunch is something that happened to us. It matters.
Yes, agreed that any pain will be self-inflicted.
I'm fascinated to see how it will all pan out. The political/philosophical territory between the Remain and Leave camps has been so fiercely fought over. Will there be any clear winner? Perhaps not... and I think the Remainers will be disappointed with that.
As it currently stands I think the Brexit camp will feel more vindicated than the Remainers. But like Ian said below, the skies could yet fall in.
FWIW, I expect a massively compromised Brexit, rather than no Brexit at all or no deal. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. People who say, what about Canada etc are missing the point. Canada isn't in Europe. It's almost inconceivable that the UK wouldn't have meaningful relationships with countries like Germany, France and even Switzerland. If we want a sophisticated economy, rather than a low cost economy like Turkey or Tunisia - a space we are not playing in - we need to be integrated with the EU. Which means accepting an arrangement with the EU on the EU's terms. I don't see a practical alternative. What will the EU offer and what will we accept? It will certainly be worse than what we had before. The EU is a membership organisation. Like all membership organisations it needs to maintain the value of membership. The UK didn't see the value of membership and so voted to leave. The EU won't make that mistake again. Any non-membership arrangement will be a very significant downgrade.
Yes but he's one of the good guys according to Twitter and the hate mob so I'm sure it will get a pass as always.
Sadly it will, but I cannot understand how even the most fanatic Corbynista can’t be seriously concerned by Milne and his views.
Why are you surprised? When he was appointed he @JeremyCorbyn4PM account — which is not Corbyn’s official spokesperson account but was responsible for the #JezWeCan social media campaign — tweeted “Seumas shares Jeremy’s world view almost to the letter.”
Corbyn is not some sort of Chauncey Gardiner. He surrounds himself with people like Milne because he shares their views and has been espousing them himself for pretty much all his career. He is not against tyranny. Only US / Western tyranny. Anyone who opposes the US and the West gets a free pass from him and Milne.
Of course, this will not matter to many voters. But the ability of those who support Corbyn to pretend that somehow the obnoxious views of his advisors and some of his supporters do not reflect Corbyn's own views, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is a marvel to behold.
Well, it would be a marvel were those views not so disgusting.
People who vote Corbyn are getting behind (in Mr Meeks' phrase, often flung at Leavers) Corbyn's views, including all the ones which should not be given house room in any decent party. And far too few of them are prepared to speak out against such views.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
It doesn't shave anything of their mortgage. The money that would have bee spent on stamp duty now goes to a higher offer price.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
The purpose is to shave it off their deposit not their mortgage! It does dramatically shave their deposit requirements which is the purpose.
That price increase (0.3%) sounds smaller than the amount saved in tax?
Indeed and if the purpose is to allow deposits to be more affordable then increases in house prices could be a price worth paying. 100% of stamp duty needs paying up front unlike the house price which only needs a percentage.
FPT currently with stamp duty if purchasing a house for £300k with a 10% deposit the buyer would need to save £35,000 - with this relief even if 100% of the stamp duty saved went onto the value of the house the buyer would need only £30,500. That's a big up-front saving for the buyer.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
It doesn't shave anything of their mortgage. The money that would have bee spent on stamp duty now goes to a higher offer price.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
The purpose is to shave it off their deposit not their mortgage! It does dramatically shave their deposit requirements which is the purpose.
That price increase (0.3%) sounds smaller than the amount saved in tax?
That's just utter rubbish. The money saved in stamp duty will clearly be greater in the majority of cases than the increase in deposit required because of a rise in prices. For those buying a house around the 250k or more are we really saying house prices will leap 15k or more overnight because of this announcement?
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
It doesn't shave anything of their mortgage. The money that would have bee spent on stamp duty now goes to a higher offer price.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
The purpose is to shave it off their deposit not their mortgage! It does dramatically shave their deposit requirements which is the purpose.
That price increase (0.3%) sounds smaller than the amount saved in tax?
That's just utter rubbish. The money saved in stamp duty will clearly be greater in the majority of cases than the increase in deposit required because of a rise in prices. For those buying a house around the 250k or more are we really saying house prices will leap 15k or more overnight because of this announcement?
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions: The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
I just think you will need to be careful round the corners as Robin Reliants are notoriously unstable.
I'll bear it in mind. If our long term economic plan (otherwise known as the lottery) finally comes good I'll treat myself to a Jag.
Make sure it's fit for the future.
That’s really tricky. I have a diesel. Obviously I won’t have another one. I do a lot of miles. Really not sure about a hybrid. I fear the current generation of hybrids/ electric cars might age very badly as the technology improves and becomes standard. It makes me very nervous about buying and the new car sales suggests I am not alone.
It is quite an extraordinary volte face, IMO. Pushing diesel cars then hammering diesel car owners.
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions: The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
I just think you will need to be careful round the corners as Robin Reliants are notoriously unstable.
I'll bear it in mind. If our long term economic plan (otherwise known as the lottery) finally comes good I'll treat myself to a Jag.
Make sure it's fit for the future.
That’s really tricky. I have a diesel. Obviously I won’t have another one. I do a lot of miles. Really not sure about a hybrid. I fear the current generation of hybrids/ electric cars might age very badly as the technology improves and becomes standard. It makes me very nervous about buying and the new car sales suggests I am not alone.
It is quite an extraordinary volte face, IMO. Pushing diesel cars then hammering diesel car owners.
The sad thing is diesel can be as clean as you want it to be - as long as you don't cheat or try to game the system.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
It doesn't shave anything of their mortgage. The money that would have bee spent on stamp duty now goes to a higher offer price.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
The purpose is to shave it off their deposit not their mortgage! It does dramatically shave their deposit requirements which is the purpose.
That price increase (0.3%) sounds smaller than the amount saved in tax?
That's just utter rubbish. The money saved in stamp duty will clearly be greater in the majority of cases than the increase in deposit required because of a rise in prices. For those buying a house around the 250k or more are we really saying house prices will leap 15k or more overnight because of this announcement?
They are saying a £250,000 home will go up £750.
If think that is overall house prices. House prices in the relief band will go up more as per the graph.
Yes but he's one of the good guys according to Twitter and the hate mob so I'm sure it will get a pass as always.
Sadly it will, but I cannot understand how even the most fanatic Corbynista can’t be seriously concerned by Milne and his views.
Why are you surprised? When he was appointed he @JeremyCorbyn4PM account — which is not Corbyn’s official spokesperson account but was responsible for the #JezWeCan social media campaign — tweeted “Seumas shares Jeremy’s world view almost to the letter.”
Corbyn is not some sort of Chauncey Gardiner. He surrounds himself with people like Milne because he shares their views and has been espousing them himself for pretty much all his career. He is not against tyranny. Only US / Western tyranny. Anyone who opposes the US and the West gets a free pass from him and Milne.
Of course, this will not matter to many voters. But the ability of those who support Corbyn to pretend that somehow the obnoxious views of his advisors and some of his supporters do not reflect Corbyn's own views, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is a marvel to behold.
Well, it would be a marvel were those views not so disgusting.
People who vote Corbyn are getting behind (in Mr Meeks' phrase, often flung at Leavers) Corbyn's views, including all the ones which should not be given house room in any decent party. And far too few of them are prepared to speak out against such views.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, things like abolishing tuition fees and *nationalising the railways are sexy, dare I say it, populist policies that grab headlines and win votes. The sort of thing that makes you think that Corbyn is a decent sort, even if you don't always agree with him.
But when you scratch beneath the surface and look at the sort of people he has associated himself with his entire life, and come to the inevitable conclusion that he shares or at the very least is sympathetic to those views, he suddenly becomes terrifying.
It is a dilemma, because if the Conservatives go after him using this line of attack it will not work, just as it failed to work in GE2017 with the IRA and all that.
The only answer for the Tories is to be equally as populist in order to keep him out. It is rather the same position as a lot of hardcore leavers found themselves in, needing to resort to the populism of being anti-immigration while boring-but-true concerns such as sovereignty and the democratic deficit were actually more important.
Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?
It doesn't shave anything of their mortgage. The money that would have bee spent on stamp duty now goes to a higher offer price.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
The purpose is to shave it off their deposit not their mortgage! It does dramatically shave their deposit requirements which is the purpose.
That price increase (0.3%) sounds smaller than the amount saved in tax?
That's just utter rubbish. The money saved in stamp duty will clearly be greater in the majority of cases than the increase in deposit required because of a rise in prices. For those buying a house around the 250k or more are we really saying house prices will leap 15k or more overnight because of this announcement?
They are saying a £250,000 home will go up £750.
So how on earth can it be squared that first time buyers are not the main beneficiaries of the announcement? Saving £2500 and paying an extra £150 deposit? Thats a big win for the new buyers. I bought my first flat in 2010 when stamp duty was scrapped for 2 years - it was a big help at the time and it will help plenty now even if it isn't a long term solution to our housing problems.
Comments
Existing home owner just gets paper gain.
If a Mother warns her child not to touch the hot stove, and the the child then touches it, does the child blame the Mother for wanting them to burn themselves?
Narrating the shambles of Brexit =/= wishing it so
She then transfers a 50% interest to you in an unconnected transaction. You just have to pay duty on the second transaction
Yet they remain restricted from borrowing to invest in residential property and social housing, despite the government's declared desire to get house building moving. I didn't hear the Chancellor say anything about this at all.
https://twitter.com/JamieJBartlett/status/933345775416938498
It really does serve as a powerful demonstration of how captialism works in practice, of how governments inadvertently create perverse financial incentives, and most of all, how resilient money is to being taxed.
I often liken it to water, it flows in one direction and will pour out through any hole it finds. It explains quite neatly why, without imposing capital controls, Corbynism simply wouldn't work.
Remain is still fighting the first campaign - it's all negative. That didn't work then, and it won;t change anything now. People respond to a positive message.
*This 'predicted' drop in GDP is, by the way, a drop in the ocean compared to the drop in GDP that occurred under Gordon Brown's reign.
'What first attracted you to the millionaire, baseball cap wearing, follically challenged, self admiring Jock?'
Edit: just realised, photographic evidence that Andra & Jez have at least one thing in common.
"today’s forecasts are based on Brexit occurring in March 2019, with two rather broad-brush assumptions:
The negotiation of new trading arrangements with the EU and others slows the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the referendum. We calibrated this slowdown on the basis of a range of external studies of different possible trade regimes and assumed offsetting impacts from exports and imports on GDP growth.
The UK adopts a tighter migration regime following departure from the EU than that currently in place, but not sufficiently tight to reduce net inward migration to the desired ‘tens of thousands’."
I think an assumption of a reduction in pace of growth with trade with the EU is reasonable. I, for one, won't be buying another EU/German built car. It may or may not be offset by additional growth with others however.
The Gov't wants its cash on completion.
I have a big paper loss.
Whoever wrote Hammond's speech has a Ladbrokes account methinks.
"Economicky" @ 16/1... wtf?!!
Change of media narrative - moving into an attack on Lab economic policies.
This is the sort of line we will surely see at next GE (whereas nothing was said at last GE).
I've gone rusty since the GE.
The Tao Te Ching will be flying off the shelves when the Momentum lot arrive...
EG house is valued at £300,000 and you can get a mortgage so long as you have a 10% deposit. The stamp duty would be £5,000 and so you would need savings of £35,000 currently (£30k for the house deposit, £5,000 for stamp duty).
In the event that stamp duty is abolished then even if the full stamp duty amount goes into the value of the home then the house is now valued at £305,000 and deposit required would be £30,500. Deposit required has come down by £4,500!
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/933354844378877954
Dec 2018 will just be the date ALL jobcentres have SOMEONE on UC.
Probably not worth the time and hassle given relatively small sums
Even if UK GDP falls by the predicted 6.2% by 2030, it's still less of a fall than was sustained in one year in 2008.
I'm not having a dig here. I'm pretty phlegmatic about Brexit. I'm just pointing out that I thought things would be a lot worse. Twitter got to me. The vehemence of the Remain camp got to me. I anticipated a major slowdown and a recession.
Instead of that, I'm personally a lot better off. Of course, my personal circumstance has no correlation with Brexit, but my current situation and that of the wider economy is far better than I imagined it would be... so it feels like a double bonus.
Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
Edit. The 6% degradation quoted was the Treasury prediction from before the referendum. The implied degradation is now predicted to be higher.
I'm fascinated to see how it will all pan out. The political/philosophical territory between the Remain and Leave camps has been so fiercely fought over. Will there be any clear winner? Perhaps not... and I think the Remainers will be disappointed with that.
As it currently stands I think the Brexit camp will feel more vindicated than the Remainers. But like Ian said below, the skies could yet fall in.
NEW THREAD
That would give every FTB a 10% deposit for a £300k house, and be doing no more than what middle-class parents do. Would cover most 2 bed-flats and houses in the south-east.
Saving £250 a month for 6 years from age 21-27 gets you there (reasonable) and covers legal/moving fees.
The only remaining issue would then be salary affordability in borrowing up to £270k. On 5 x single salary, you'd need £54k. If young couple were earning £25k and £29k each, assuming you can borrow 2 x double (and I don't see why not) you could do it, and that would also seem reasonable.
London would remain a problem.
No-one has a clue as to what growth will be in the next few years, including the OBR, but it has to base its forecasts on something.
Personally I'm not too bothered by the stamp duty stuff though. It's all a bit meh.
I don't generally like transaction taxes - IMO, it would be much better to charge an annual lvt, or a proper council/property tax which would stop freehold land/residential property in the UK (particularly SE England) being used as a store of tax-free wealth/viable mechanism for IHT avoidance.
However it would quickly be portrayed by opponents as a middle-class bung (neatly ignoring the fact that people of all walks of life generally want to own property), "money paid to people who are well off enough to save, when we should be taking that money and giving it to people who don't have enough to survive, let alone save..."
Corbyn is not some sort of Chauncey Gardiner. He surrounds himself with people like Milne because he shares their views and has been espousing them himself for pretty much all his career. He is not against tyranny. Only US / Western tyranny. Anyone who opposes the US and the West gets a free pass from him and Milne.
Of course, this will not matter to many voters. But the ability of those who support Corbyn to pretend that somehow the obnoxious views of his advisors and some of his supporters do not reflect Corbyn's own views, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is a marvel to behold.
Well, it would be a marvel were those views not so disgusting.
People who vote Corbyn are getting behind (in Mr Meeks' phrase, often flung at Leavers) Corbyn's views, including all the ones which should not be given house room in any decent party. And far too few of them are prepared to speak out against such views.
FPT currently with stamp duty if purchasing a house for £300k with a 10% deposit the buyer would need to save £35,000 - with this relief even if 100% of the stamp duty saved went onto the value of the house the buyer would need only £30,500. That's a big up-front saving for the buyer.
Unfortunately, things like abolishing tuition fees and *nationalising the railways are sexy, dare I say it, populist policies that grab headlines and win votes. The sort of thing that makes you think that Corbyn is a decent sort, even if you don't always agree with him.
But when you scratch beneath the surface and look at the sort of people he has associated himself with his entire life, and come to the inevitable conclusion that he shares or at the very least is sympathetic to those views, he suddenly becomes terrifying.
It is a dilemma, because if the Conservatives go after him using this line of attack it will not work, just as it failed to work in GE2017 with the IRA and all that.
The only answer for the Tories is to be equally as populist in order to keep him out. It is rather the same position as a lot of hardcore leavers found themselves in, needing to resort to the populism of being anti-immigration while boring-but-true concerns such as sovereignty and the democratic deficit were actually more important.