I don't think people in expensive houses should pay more Council tax, which is the implication of your comment. The main reason is that people in these expensive houses are unlikely to use any of the services provided by the Council that are funded by Council tax.
But also, if someone lives in a house and it goes up in value, why should they be taxed out of the house? One of my friends parents bought a four bedroom terraced house in a now fashionable part of London the early 1980's for a negligible amount of money. They still live there leading basic lives, there is still no electricity in the kitchen, and my friend and his brother still live with them as they cannot afford to buy their own properties in London. The house is now worth over a million pounds, but that is a hypothetical value. They don't want to move anywhere, and, to pick up on a point made earlier, the resource is being used efficiently. It would be totally immoral to try and tax them out of the property.
What is surely legitimate, on the other hand, is to tax the unearned increase in financial value attributed to the property because of its location. Inheritance tax must surely be the best way of doing that.
I disagree almost 100% with that. Of course there are losers under any tax system just as there are winners.
Of course they use services funded by Council Tax - do they not have rubbish to clear ? Might they not have children or grandchildren in education ? Might they not use the local library ?
We don't operate a contract arrangement where you only pay for the services you use. I have no involvement in education but I pay toward Newham's schools and adult education.
Anyone can cite an isolated example to prove a point but it is, I would argue, isolated and it doesn't invalidate the point that it is grossly unfair that someone living in a £1 million house pays the same Council Tax as someone living in a £350k house.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
There is a clear parallel between our attitude to the housing market and America's dysfunctional relationship with guns.
The American Dream, of course, is based around the mythos of rugged individualism, interwoven with a creation story about shrugging off oppression and armed resistance to tyranny. Hence the obsession with guns.
In Britain, of course, we have had a series of gradual, mostly bloodless revolutions that have taken us from feudalism, with the kings and the lords in their castles, towards a slow emancipation of the middle and working classes, strongly supported by classical liberalism. We say "an Englishman's home is his castle" for a reason - we each see ourselves as feudal lords within our own domains, however small they may be.
You can no more ask an Englishman to surrender his home than you can an American his guns. Of course, there will be those on the liberal/left spectrum who decry these obsessions as unjust, but they are - and always will be - imprinted on the national psyche.
To tax and take an Englishman's home away from him would be to lay bare the illusion that he enjoys personal sovereignty - without it, the state has license to encroach on every aspect of his life, just as the American fears the state will encroach on his if the right to bear arms is taken away.
Good post. One of your best so far. Although the existence of compulsory purchase laws (which have survived largely uncontroversially) possibly contradicts your conclusions.
Thanks!
For me it's the most logical explanation why a Texan - not exactly a stereotypical socialist - doesn't bat an eyelid at a 1.9% annual property tax yet the mere thought of it is enough to send us into spasms over here in GB.
I spent a fair bit of time in the US for work and our national obsession with home ownership does sometimes feel oddly parallel to the American obsession with gun ownership, in the way it is an irrational shibboleth. And most of continental Europe is happy to rent.
I think when people like Ed Miliband make a case for land value tax and so on, their mistake is to to treat it as a rational problem to be solved rather than the emotive issue it actually is.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual economically dumb.
Suspect it would need a Labour government to do anything about that. The uproar from the wealthy would be quite something.
Edit - from memory John McDonnell is part of the Labour land group.
Perhaps you should refresh your memo to get such a proposal through Parliament because too many Labour MPs (mindful of reaction in their constituencies) would vote against it,
There were certainly plenty of wealthy voters in Hampstead and Islington who were appalled at the prospect of a wealth tax.
My recollection is that almost all London Labour MPs were against the Mansion Tax, whether they represented Peckham or Hampstead.
London is going to be well represented in the PLP if Corbyn wins.
There will plenty of losers in London -- and losers in the TV and print media -- and we’ll hear a lot from them.
It will make the outcries about the pasty tax and the granny tax look minuscule.
Indeed the AVERAGE voteshare in the UK.
London needs different rules, because its market operates on global level, not a national one.
Yes, London is now competing with New York, Los Angeles, Paris and Shanghai for investment not Birmingham and Sheffield.
Don't forget that anything relating to the London market also has a knock on effect to the whole of the south east.
True but London and the South East are in a different league in terms of property value to the rest of the UK.
In London the average house price is £482 000 and in the South East it is £320 000.
In the North East it is just £130 000 and for the whole of England it is £240 000, less than half the average London price.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
People couldn't care less about what's most economically efficient at a macro level, or not, or what happens in other countries.
They want the Government to keep its hands off their home.
Sure.
But in the long run we all benefit if scarce resources are allocated efficiently.
I personally would get rid of IHT and impose a small annual charge of 0.25% on gross assets. It would discourage excessive leverage, be fairer for people with family businesses, farms. etc., and encourage people to use assets sensibly.
So is the suggestion here that the policeman in question is trying to stir things up? Or does he genuinely feel that there is a need for such a scheme?
Vote Leave, the official campaign to quit the EU, faces fresh questions over controversial payments it made to other anti-Europe movements during its successful referendum battle.
The Electoral Commission has denied a claim by Vote Leave’s chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, that it had given them “a letter of permission” to make the donations to other campaigns, which are now under investigation.
The commission announced a new investigation last week into donations Vote Leave made of £625,000 to BeLeave and £100,000 to Veterans for Britain, and whether the officially sanctioned organisation had exceeded its official spending limits.
Cummings had previously claimed that the Electoral Commission gave them permission “in writing” to make the donations. However, following months of Freedom of Information requests, the commission has now said it had no record of it.
It said it had looked at all correspondence between Cummings/Vote Leave and the commission during the regulated period of the referendum (from April to June) and said: “We can’t find any record of any exchange with us on the subject of donations from that period.”
Cummings failed to respond to the Observer when asked him if he had any explanation for the discrepancy.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
People couldn't care less about what's most economically efficient at a macro level, or not, or what happens in other countries.
They want the Government to keep its hands off their home.
Sure.
But in the long run we all benefit if scarce resources are allocated efficiently.
I personally would get rid of IHT and impose a small annual charge of 0.25% on gross assets. It would discourage excessive leverage, be fairer for people with family businesses, farms. etc., and encourage people to use assets sensibly.
I don't think people in expensive houses should pay more Council tax, which is the implication of your comment. The main reason is that people in these expensive houses are unlikely to use any of the services provided by the Council that are funded by Council tax.
But also, if someone lives in a house and it goes up in value, why should they be taxed out of the house? One of my friends parents bought a four bedroom terraced house in a now fashionable part of London the early 1980's for a negligible amount of money. They still live there leading basic lives, there is still no electricity in the kitchen, and my friend and his brother still live with them as they cannot afford to buy their own properties in London. The house is now worth over a million pounds, but that is a hypothetical value. They don't want to move anywhere, and, to pick up on a point made earlier, the resource is being used efficiently. It would be totally immoral to try and tax them out of the property.
What is surely legitimate, on the other hand, is to tax the unearned increase in financial value attributed to the property because of its location. Inheritance tax must surely be the best way of doing that.
I disagree almost 100% with that. Of course there are losers under any tax system just as there are winners.
Of course they use services funded by Council Tax - do they not have rubbish to clear ? Might they not have children or grandchildren in education ? Might they not use the local library ?
We don't operate a contract arrangement where you only pay for the services you use. I have no involvement in education but I pay toward Newham's schools and adult education.
Anyone can cite an isolated example to prove a point but it is, I would argue, isolated and it doesn't invalidate the point that it is grossly unfair that someone living in a £1 million house pays the same Council Tax as someone living in a £350k house.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
Does someone in a million pound house have three times the waste collection etc?
Vote Leave, the official campaign to quit the EU, faces fresh questions over controversial payments it made to other anti-Europe movements during its successful referendum battle.
The Electoral Commission has denied a claim by Vote Leave’s chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, that it had given them “a letter of permission” to make the donations to other campaigns, which are now under investigation.
The commission announced a new investigation last week into donations Vote Leave made of £625,000 to BeLeave and £100,000 to Veterans for Britain, and whether the officially sanctioned organisation had exceeded its official spending limits.
Cummings had previously claimed that the Electoral Commission gave them permission “in writing” to make the donations. However, following months of Freedom of Information requests, the commission has now said it had no record of it.
It said it had looked at all correspondence between Cummings/Vote Leave and the commission during the regulated period of the referendum (from April to June) and said: “We can’t find any record of any exchange with us on the subject of donations from that period.”
Cummings failed to respond to the Observer when asked him if he had any explanation for the discrepancy.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
This is true. But most children (including me) of the people who's properties have gone up in value have done nothing to deserve the mess we have in London and the South East. I'm basically saving up to be able to pay for adult social care and IHT so that I don't have to leave the house I've grown up in.
Vote Leave, the official campaign to quit the EU, faces fresh questions over controversial payments it made to other anti-Europe movements during its successful referendum battle.
The Electoral Commission has denied a claim by Vote Leave’s chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, that it had given them “a letter of permission” to make the donations to other campaigns, which are now under investigation.
The commission announced a new investigation last week into donations Vote Leave made of £625,000 to BeLeave and £100,000 to Veterans for Britain, and whether the officially sanctioned organisation had exceeded its official spending limits.
Cummings had previously claimed that the Electoral Commission gave them permission “in writing” to make the donations. However, following months of Freedom of Information requests, the commission has now said it had no record of it.
It said it had looked at all correspondence between Cummings/Vote Leave and the commission during the regulated period of the referendum (from April to June) and said: “We can’t find any record of any exchange with us on the subject of donations from that period.”
Cummings failed to respond to the Observer when asked him if he had any explanation for the discrepancy.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
This is true. But most children (including me) of the people who's properties have gone up in value have done nothing to deserve the mess we have in London and the South East. I'm basically saving up to be able to pay for adult social care and IHT so that I don't have to leave the house I've grown up in.
Thanks to Osborne if your parents' property is worth under £1 million you won't have to pay IHT.
If your parents never need residential care you won't have to sell the family home to pay for adult social care either.
There is a clear parallel between our attitude to the housing market and America's dysfunctional relationship with guns.
The American Dream, of course, is based around the mythos of rugged individualism, interwoven with a creation story about shrugging off oppression and armed resistance to tyranny. Hence the obsession with guns.
In Britain, of course, we have had a series of gradual, mostly bloodless revolutions that have taken us from feudalism, with the kings and the lords in their castles, towards a slow emancipation of the middle and working classes, strongly supported by classical liberalism. We say "an Englishman's home is his castle" for a reason - we each see ourselves as feudal lords within our own domains, however small they may be.
You can no more ask an Englishman to surrender his home than you can an American his guns. Of course, there will be those on the liberal/left spectrum who decry these obsessions as unjust, but they are - and always will be - imprinted on the national psyche.
To tax and take an Englishman's home away from him would be to lay bare the illusion that he enjoys personal sovereignty - without it, the state has license to encroach on every aspect of his life, just as the American fears the state will encroach on his if the right to bear arms is taken away.
Good post. One of your best so far. Although the existence of compulsory purchase laws (which have survived largely uncontroversially) possibly contradicts your conclusions.
Thanks!
For me it's the most logical explanation why a Texan - not exactly a stereotypical socialist - doesn't bat an eyelid at a 1.9% annual property tax yet the mere thought of it is enough to send us into spasms over here in GB.
I spent a fair bit of time in the US for work and our national obsession with home ownership does sometimes feel oddly parallel to the American obsession with gun ownership, in the way it is an irrational shibboleth. And most of continental Europe is happy to rent.
I think when people like Ed Miliband make a case for land value tax and so on, their mistake is to to treat it as a rational problem to be solved rather than the emotive issue it actually is.
Please drive this meme about Europeans being happy to rent from your brain. It is not true! Germany is not Europe.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
This is true. But most children (including me) of the people who's properties have gone up in value have done nothing to deserve the mess we have in London and the South East. I'm basically saving up to be able to pay for adult social care and IHT so that I don't have to leave the house I've grown up in.
Thanks to Osborne if your parents' property is worth under £1 million you won't have to pay IHT
Problem is, the way things are going, I could see it being worth that in 10 years time.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
This is true. But most children (including me) of the people who's properties have gone up in value have done nothing to deserve the mess we have in London and the South East. I'm basically saving up to be able to pay for adult social care and IHT so that I don't have to leave the house I've grown up in.
Thanks to Osborne if your parents' property is worth under £1 million you won't have to pay IHT
Yes, but we are discussing this pre-Corbyn/McDonnell Gov't whereas he'll be paying IHT post Corbyn.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
This is true. But most children (including me) of the people who's properties have gone up in value have done nothing to deserve the mess we have in London and the South East. I'm basically saving up to be able to pay for adult social care and IHT so that I don't have to leave the house I've grown up in.
Thanks to Osborne if your parents' property is worth under £1 million you won't have to pay IHT
Yes, but we are discussing this pre-Corbyn/McDonnell Gov't whereas he'll be paying IHT post Corbyn.
Surely the negative feedback there is that they'd crash the housing market!
Mr. Charles, I started watching the first one (Zama, I think) but, as you suggest, it was a bit too much of an introduction to history for me. I would've preferred something a bit more detailed.
Out of interest, what other days did they single out?
Spartacus Rubicon Reading Mark Antony's will
Are the ones I've done so far. I believe seizing Boudicca's legacy is the next one
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
This is true. But most children (including me) of the people who's properties have gone up in value have done nothing to deserve the mess we have in London and the South East. I'm basically saving up to be able to pay for adult social care and IHT so that I don't have to leave the house I've grown up in.
Thanks to Osborne if your parents' property is worth under £1 million you won't have to pay IHT
Yes, but we are discussing this pre-Corbyn/McDonnell Gov't whereas he'll be paying IHT post Corbyn.
Only if Corbyn gets a clear overall majority, without that I would not be certain he would get it through and even if he did it would probably be so unpopular (along with the rest of his government's record in practice) the Tories may be back in power after a term and restore the IHT cut again.
For me it's the most logical explanation why a Texan - not exactly a stereotypical socialist - doesn't bat an eyelid at a 1.9% annual property tax yet the mere thought of it is enough to send us into spasms over here in GB.
I spent a fair bit of time in the US for work and our national obsession with home ownership does sometimes feel oddly parallel to the American obsession with gun ownership, in the way it is an irrational shibboleth. And most of continental Europe is happy to rent.
I think when people like Ed Miliband make a case for land value tax and so on, their mistake is to to treat it as a rational problem to be solved rather than the emotive issue it actually is.
Please drive this meme about Europeans being happy to rent from your brain. It is not true! Germany is not Europe.
Ah, but in my experience - and you'll have to excuse me here, I have less experience with Europe than I do with the US - there is a degree of social stratification in the UK related to home ownership that there simply isn't in other European nations. If you don't own a home in the UK, you are actively considered a failure by your peers. It's one of the most important dividing lines in the ongoing us-vs-them that characterises the country.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
This is true. But most children (including me) of the people who's properties have gone up in value have done nothing to deserve the mess we have in London and the South East. I'm basically saving up to be able to pay for adult social care and IHT so that I don't have to leave the house I've grown up in.
Thanks to Osborne if your parents' property is worth under £1 million you won't have to pay IHT
Problem is, the way things are going, I could see it being worth that in 10 years time.
Yes but you still would keep all the value under £1 million, you would only pay IHT on the value over £1 million.
For me it's the most logical explanation why a Texan - not exactly a stereotypical socialist - doesn't bat an eyelid at a 1.9% annual property tax yet the mere thought of it is enough to send us into spasms over here in GB.
I spent a fair bit of time in the US for work and our national obsession with home ownership does sometimes feel oddly parallel to the American obsession with gun ownership, in the way it is an irrational shibboleth. And most of continental Europe is happy to rent.
I think when people like Ed Miliband make a case for land value tax and so on, their mistake is to to treat it as a rational problem to be solved rather than the emotive issue it actually is.
Please drive this meme about Europeans being happy to rent from your brain. It is not true! Germany is not Europe.
Ah, but in my experience - and you'll have to excuse me here, I have less experience with Europe than I do with the US - there is a degree of social stratification in the UK related to home ownership that there simply isn't in other European nations. If you don't own a home in the UK, you are actively considered a failure by your peers. It's one of the most important dividing lines in the ongoing us-vs-them that characterises the country.
Plenty of other nations buy houses, but none seem quite so obsessed by it as the British.
I approve of the use of Daily Mash as supporting evidence
I don't think it's very different in the States. How many Americans with some degree of success don't own a property, with the possible exception of Manhattan residents?
Why would that shock anyone? I thought it was obvious that during the transition we would implement EEA rules for EEA access which means accepting new regulations. After the transition would be different.
For me it's the most logical explanation why a Texan - not exactly a stereotypical socialist - doesn't bat an eyelid at a 1.9% annual property tax yet the mere thought of it is enough to send us into spasms over here in GB.
I spent a fair bit of time in the US for work and our national obsession with home ownership does sometimes feel oddly parallel to the American obsession with gun ownership, in the way it is an irrational shibboleth. And most of continental Europe is happy to rent.
I think when people like Ed Miliband make a case for land value tax and so on, their mistake is to to treat it as a rational problem to be solved rather than the emotive issue it actually is.
Please drive this meme about Europeans being happy to rent from your brain. It is not true! Germany is not Europe.
Ah, but in my experience - and you'll have to excuse me here, I have less experience with Europe than I do with the US - there is a degree of social stratification in the UK related to home ownership that there simply isn't in other European nations. If you don't own a home in the UK, you are actively considered a failure by your peers. It's one of the most important dividing lines in the ongoing us-vs-them that characterises the country.
Plenty of other nations buy houses, but none seem quite so obsessed by it as the British.
UK median wealth per adult is $102 641 (including housing), the 6th highest of 20 nations measured by Credit Suisse this year. The average UK adult has a higher median wealth than even the average adult in Germany and the US, though the wealthiest were Swiss and Australians. As both the Swiss and Germans have higher numbers of renters than the UK that suggests that property ownership alone does not explain wealth (though of course the Swiss have large numbers of personal savings and shares which helps). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
For me it's the most logical explanation why a Texan - not exactly a stereotypical socialist - doesn't bat an eyelid at a 1.9% annual property tax yet the mere thought of it is enough to send us into spasms over here in GB.
I spent a fair bit of time in the US for work and our national obsession with home ownership does sometimes feel oddly parallel to the American obsession with gun ownership, in the way it is an irrational shibboleth. And most of continental Europe is happy to rent.
I think when people like Ed Miliband make a case for land value tax and so on, their mistake is to to treat it as a rational problem to be solved rather than the emotive issue it actually is.
Please drive this meme about Europeans being happy to rent from your brain. It is not true! Germany is not Europe.
Ah, but in my experience - and you'll have to excuse me here, I have less experience with Europe than I do with the US - there is a degree of social stratification in the UK related to home ownership that there simply isn't in other European nations. If you don't own a home in the UK, you are actively considered a failure by your peers. It's one of the most important dividing lines in the ongoing us-vs-them that characterises the country.
Plenty of other nations buy houses, but none seem quite so obsessed by it as the British.
I approve of the use of Daily Mash as supporting evidence
I don't think it's very different in the States. How many Americans with some degree of success don't own a property, with the possible exception of Manhattan residents?
Yes, you're right. The Americans have trailer parks and so on, and I think the size of your house is always going to be a status symbol to some extent wherever in the world you go.
Aside from the obvious class distinction there seems to be a psychological element of sovereignty contained within the ideal of the home in the UK. How else can you explain the ubiquitous "dads in sheds" phenomenon (Even David Cameron has a posh one) other than "The Mrs rules the roost in the house now, and I have a psychological need for my own sovereign territory, even if it is a dilapidated old shed with a leaky roof".
Come to think of it there may be some overlap with the psychology of Brexit
For me it's the most logical explanation why a Texan - not exactly a stereotypical socialist - doesn't bat an eyelid at a 1.9% annual property tax yet the mere thought of it is enough to send us into spasms over here in GB.
I spent a fair bit of time in the US for work and our national obsession with home ownership does sometimes feel oddly parallel to the American obsession with gun ownership, in the way it is an irrational shibboleth. And most of continental Europe is happy to rent.
I think when people like Ed Miliband make a case for land value tax and so on, their mistake is to to treat it as a rational problem to be solved rather than the emotive issue it actually is.
Please drive this meme about Europeans being happy to rent from your brain. It is not true! Germany is not Europe.
Ah, but in my experience - and you'll have to excuse me here, I have less experience with Europe than I do with the US - there is a degree of social stratification in the UK related to home ownership that there simply isn't in other European nations. If you don't own a home in the UK, you are actively considered a failure by your peers. It's one of the most important dividing lines in the ongoing us-vs-them that characterises the country.
Plenty of other nations buy houses, but none seem quite so obsessed by it as the British.
I approve of the use of Daily Mash as supporting evidence
I don't think it's very different in the States. How many Americans with some degree of success don't own a property, with the possible exception of Manhattan residents?
Leftwing pressure group Momentum is asking Labour parliamentary contenders to sign a contract that ties them to the “political objectives” set out in the organisation’s constitution to secure its support in upcoming selection battles, the Observer has learned.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
Who determines the value of a house?
Thats a good question. I assume it isn't the open market value.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
Who determines the value of a house?
Thats a good question. I assume it isn't the open market value.
Purchase price (or transfer price)
I'm definitely in favour of that system. Our three bed semi is worth £104,000.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
Who determines the value of a house?
Thats a good question. I assume it isn't the open market value.
Purchase price (or transfer price)
That would put a mammoth disincentive to ever move house.
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
Who determines the value of a house?
Thats a good question. I assume it isn't the open market value.
Purchase price (or transfer price)
That would put a mammoth disincentive to ever move house.
Alternatively it keeps house prices in check. The problem, once again, is that it's very difficult to impose such a system on our market.
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
Genuine question, what rights would UK citizens lose if we ceased to be a permanent member of the security council?
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
Genuine question, what rights would UK citizens lose if we ceased to be a permanent member of the security council?
Well we would lose the right to say "I live in a country that is a permanent member of the security council", for starters.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
Who determines the value of a house?
Thats a good question. I assume it isn't the open market value.
Purchase price (or transfer price)
That would put a mammoth disincentive to ever move house.
Alternatively it keeps house prices in check. The problem, once again, is that it's very difficult to impose such a system on our market.
Even keeping house prices in check house price inflation SHOULD occur to some extent. Due to wages growth and normal inflation etc
Having a major tax whereby someone is paying potentially ten times the tax just because they bought recently versus decades ago would be totally unfair and especially punitive on the younger housebuyers who would be lumped with much greater taxes.
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
Genuine question, what rights would UK citizens lose if we ceased to be a permanent member of the security council?
Well we would lose the right to say "I live in a country that is a permanent member of the security council", for starters.
. Inheritance tax must surely be the best way of doing that.
I disagree almost 100% with that. Of course there are losers under any tax system just as there are winners.
Of course they use services funded by Council Tax - do they not have rubbish to clear ? Might they not have children or grandchildren in education ? Might they not use the local library ?
We don't operate a contract arrangement where you only pay for the services you use. I have no involvement in education but I pay toward Newham's schools and adult education.
Anyone can cite an isolated example to prove a point but it is, I would argue, isolated and it doesn't invalidate the point that it is grossly unfair that someone living in a £1 million house pays the same Council Tax as someone living in a £350k house.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
Someone who lives in a large detached house and pays £3k in council tax pretty much only uses the Council to get their bins emptied. They place very few demands on local services. They are also more likely to use private gyms, private schooling etc. If they are old, then they are likely to pay for help and assistance with their everyday lives. They are unlikely to go to the library.
On the other hand, it is the poorer/ more vulnerable who use the Council services you describe, and tend to live in cheaper properties therefore pay less tax, ie £1k per annum. Of course, we live in society and it is right that those who can afford it, pay.
The fact that someone lives in a house that is notionally expensive does not mean that they are an unlimited source of free money. They may in reality have no spare money. Certainly that is the case in London where a lot of people fall in to the category of having a very expensive property (due to the fact they have been there for 20+ years) but a modest income. In fact, public services in London largely survive on this declining pool of people (along with immigrant labour).
This is not at all unique to London. It is everywhere in the south east. I live in a modest neighbourhood where houses that were worth £200k five years ago now sell for £400k. Most of the people who live there are on modest local incomes. Is it fair to double their council tax just because the notional value of the houses has gone up? They aren't to blame for the dysfunctional housing market.
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
Genuine question, what rights would UK citizens lose if we ceased to be a permanent member of the security council?
Well we would lose the right to say "I live in a country that is a permanent member of the security council", for starters.
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
Agreed, there are a lot of 30-50 year old people who are open to our ideas, but I don't think Theresa is the right leader to bring them into our camp. I don't know who is, but I know it's not Theresa.
Yet Theresa now looks much stronger than 6 weeks ago. Things can change so quickly.
She might even last beyond 2019 now.
Let's say Brexit goes ok. There is no recession. We transition to a good enough trading relationship with the EU, she banks a few populist wins post-Brexit with quick trade deals, blue passports, new immigration rules, and the economy recovers due to The Certainty, the new houses are in place, plus a new leader takes over 6 months out to GE2022.
Corbyn certainly wouldn't be a slam-dunk.
Or Brexit could go wonderfully but she could get slammed with a typical cyclical recession in 2020.
Events, dear boy.
Indeed so. Or, that might not happen.
Brexit was supposed to (at best) lead to stagnation, or a mild recession. Instead the latest OBR forecasts show growth continuing throughout, and we have the lowest unemployment in over 40 years.
I'm not making predictions - those who do turn out to either look like geniuses or idiots, and largely by fluke - but I am saying it could quite credibly happen.
The latest forecasts literally show stagnation. Growth below inflation, and wage growth worse. That's not entirely to do with Brexit, but it is a bit, as it has increased inflation and uncertainty and is consuming government time and resources. Unemployment is low because self employment is now at a record high, and that has everything to do with technology. The worrying thing, whether Tory or Labour is that we're addressing old issues rather than real ones.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
Who determines the value of a house?
Thats a good question. I assume it isn't the open market value.
I'm definitely up for some creative thinking about this stuff. I actually quite like the idea of all estates being subject to IHT, but starting with very low rates and increasing a bit like stamp duty.
The problem as I see it is this. Everyone's crying out for lower house prices, but do they really want that? Let's say property prices fell 20% overnight. Would that be welcomed? I don't think so. This is the real problem.
There is a clear parallel between our attitude to the housing market and America's dysfunctional relationship with guns.
The American Dream, of course, is based around the mythos of rugged individualism, interwoven with a creation story about shrugging off oppression and armed resistance to tyranny. Hence the obsession with guns.
What I find curious about the American right is the warrior cult surrounding the armed forces as individualism is anathema to its ethos. In many ways the US Army is actually the most socialist element of American government and society.
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
Genuine question, what rights would UK citizens lose if we ceased to be a permanent member of the security council?
Well we would lose the right to say "I live in a country that is a permanent member of the security council", for starters.
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
Genuine question, what rights would UK citizens lose if we ceased to be a permanent member of the security council?
The right to veto any action taken by one of the superpowers like the US, China and Russia so that it does not have UN approval or to draft a resolution on international affairs which is in UK interests. Which is why Parliament will never approve giving up UK membership of the UN Security Council.
I don't think people in expensive houses should pay more Council tax, which is the implication of your comment. The main reason is that people in these expensive houses are unlikely to use any of the services provided by the Council that are funded by Council tax.
But also, if someone lives in a house and it goes up in value, why should they be taxed out of the house? One of my friends parents bought a four bedroom terraced house in a now fashionable part of London the early 1980's for a negligible amount of money. They still live there leading basic lives, there is still no electricity in the kitchen, and my friend and his brother still live with them as they cannot afford to buy their own properties in London. The house is now worth over a million pounds, but that is a hypothetical value. They don't want to move anywhere, and, to pick up on a point made earlier, the resource is being used efficiently. It would be totally immoral to try and tax them out of the property.
What is surely legitimate, on the other hand, is to tax the unearned increase in financial value attributed to the property because of its location. Inheritance tax must surely be the best way of doing that.
I disagree almost 100% with that. Of course there are losers under any tax system just as there are winners.
Of course they use services funded by Council Tax - do they not have rubbish to clear ? Might they not have children or grandchildren in education ? Might they not use the local library ?
We don't operate a contract arrangement where you only pay for the services you use. I have no involvement in education but I pay toward Newham's schools and adult education.
Anyone can cite an isolated example to prove a point but it is, I would argue, isolated and it doesn't invalidate the point that it is grossly unfair that someone living in a £1 million house pays the same Council Tax as someone living in a £350k house.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
Different taxes should do different things
Council tax should be able local services and broadly similar
@SkyNewsBreak: Labour says a senior member of staff has died "suddenly and unexpectedly" after the party began an investigation into their conduct
@ZoraSuleman: Labour confirm that a member of Labour Party staff at their HQ in Victoria has died unexpectedly. Its understood the person had been suspended from the party over misconducted relating to adult pornography
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
Agreed, there are a lot of 30-50 year old people who are open to our ideas, but I don't think Theresa is the right leader to bring them into our camp. I don't know who is, but I know it's not Theresa.
Yet Theresa now looks much stronger than 6 weeks ago. Things can change so quickly.
She might even last beyond 2019 now.
Let's say Brexit goes ok. There is no recession. We transition to a good enough trading relationship with the EU, she banks a few populist wins post-Brexit with quick trade deals, blue passports, new immigration rules, and the economy recovers due to The Certainty, the new houses are in place, plus a new leader takes over 6 months out to GE2022.
Corbyn certainly wouldn't be a slam-dunk.
Or Brexit could go wonderfully but she could get slammed with a typical cyclical recession in 2020.
Events, dear boy.
Indeed so. Or, that might not happen.
Brexit was supposed to (at best) lead to stagnation, or a mild recession. Instead the latest OBR forecasts show growth continuing throughout, and we have the lowest unemployment in over 40 years.
I'm not making predictions - those who do turn out to either look like geniuses or idiots, and largely by fluke - but I am saying it could quite credibly happen.
The latest forecasts literally show stagnation. Growth below inflation, and wage growth worse. That's not entirely to do with Brexit, but it is a bit, as it has increased inflation and uncertainty and is consuming government time and resources. Unemployment is low because self employment is now at a record high, and that has everything to do with technology. The worrying thing, whether Tory or Labour is that we're addressing old issues rather than real ones.
Growth forecasts are in real terms
fretting about growth seems to be the toward the upper bounds of the Project Fear expectations *innocent face*
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
On a point of pedantry, it was R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, where R was Miller.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
People couldn't care less about what's most economically efficient at a macro level, or not, or what happens in other countries.
They want the Government to keep its hands off their home.
Sure.
But in the long run we all benefit if scarce resources are allocated efficiently.
I personally would get rid of IHT and impose a small annual charge of 0.25% on gross assets. It would discourage excessive leverage, be fairer for people with family businesses, farms. etc., and encourage people to use assets sensibly.
Business rollover relief protects people with family businesses; agricultural land is exempt from IHT
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
On a point of pedantry, it was R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, where R was Miller.
@SkyNewsBreak: Labour says a senior member of staff has died "suddenly and unexpectedly" after the party began an investigation into their conduct
@ZoraSuleman: Labour confirm that a member of Labour Party staff at their HQ in Victoria has died unexpectedly. Its understood the person had been suspended from the party over misconducted relating to adult pornography
Carl Sargeant's suicide in Wales is resulting in lots of anger following allegations of a 'toxic' Welsh labour party and the appointment of an independent inquiry
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
On a point of pedantry, it was R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, where R was Miller.
"where R was Miller"!!!
If you are going to be a pedant, TSE...
In my defence, I've had what feels like the pneumonic plague since Thursday night
Bold of the Observer to say 'Irish' when it actually means 'EU Commissioner who is an Irishman'.
And if that Commissioner is urging continued UK single market membership, isn't he out of step with Tusk, who says the UK absolutely cannot remain in the single market.
And isn't that a Commissioner running a Brexit policy 100% opposed to that of the Council? In domestic politics, that would Priti much be the end of a minister
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
We were talking on the previous thread about trashing the UK armed forces, and surrendering the UK security council seat.
I think Corbyn would do both those things, as well as devastate the economy.
It's like Russians voting for Barbarossa. F*cking insane.
Corbyn would not get surrendering the UK Security Council seat through Parliament, even in the unlikely event he gets a majority many if not most Labour MPs would vote against it.
At least provided there is no Momentum inspired purge of Labour MPs before the next general election.
Would he be required to get the consent of Parliament for that, or an Act of Parliament through?
I'm not so sure. Crown prerogative powers are extensive (and, yes, I do get the irony).
Of course he would, the royal prerogative only applies in foreign affairs to future actions, eg the declaration of war and making of treaties, it cannot be used retrospectively to end membership of something the UK is already a member of without Parliamentary approval.
You have a citation for that?
Wasn't there a court case recently which decided that royal prerogative couldn't be used to remove rights from citizens without parliamentary approval
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
Genuine question, what rights would UK citizens lose if we ceased to be a permanent member of the security council?
Well we would lose the right to say "I live in a country that is a permanent member of the security council", for starters.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
Who determines the value of a house?
Thats a good question. I assume it isn't the open market value.
I'm definitely up for some creative thinking about this stuff. I actually quite like the idea of all estates being subject to IHT, but starting with very low rates and increasing a bit like stamp duty.
The problem as I see it is this. Everyone's crying out for lower house prices, but do they really want that? Let's say property prices fell 20% overnight. Would that be welcomed? I don't think so. This is the real problem.
There is a clear parallel between our attitude to the housing market and America's dysfunctional relationship with guns.
The American Dream, of course, is based around the mythos of rugged individualism, interwoven with a creation story about shrugging off oppression and armed resistance to tyranny. Hence the obsession with guns.
What I find curious about the American right is the warrior cult surrounding the armed forces as individualism is anathema to its ethos. In many ways the US Army is actually the most socialist element of American government and society.
I suspect it has something to do with pledging allegiance to a flag. Flag-worship was one of the strangest things I found about the US, the ubiquity of the stars-and-stripes on almost every street corner just seems odd to British eyes. You wouldn't see an England flag out unless there was a football match and if you came across a street lined with Union Jacks you would assume The Queen was passing by.
But you can see some of those socialist elements in the far right militias you see "on patrol" sometimes. The right to organise collectively (and scare the hell out of other people) in order to defend personal liberty.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
Who determines the value of a house?
Thats a good question. I assume it isn't the open market value.
I'm definitely up for some creative thinking about this stuff. I actually quite like the idea of all estates being subject to IHT, but starting with very low rates and increasing a bit like stamp duty.
The problem as I see it is this. Everyone's crying out for lower house prices, but do they really want that? Let's say property prices fell 20% overnight. Would that be welcomed? I don't think so. This is the real problem.
There is a clear parallel between our attitude to the housing market and America's dysfunctional relationship with guns.
The American Dream, of course, is based around the mythos of rugged individualism, interwoven with a creation story about shrugging off oppression and armed resistance to tyranny. Hence the obsession with guns.
What I find curious about the American right is the warrior cult surrounding the armed forces as individualism is anathema to its ethos. In many ways the US Army is actually the most socialist element of American government and society.
Nowadays, in most cases, the US military is colour blind.
@SkyNewsBreak: Labour says a senior member of staff has died "suddenly and unexpectedly" after the party began an investigation into their conduct
@ZoraSuleman: Labour confirm that a member of Labour Party staff at their HQ in Victoria has died unexpectedly. Its understood the person had been suspended from the party over misconducted relating to adult pornography
Carl Sargeant's suicide in Wales is resulting in lots of anger following allegations of a 'toxic' Welsh labour party and the appointment of an independent inquiry
Never! Just ask Kinnock and Smith senior, they will deny everything.......
@SkyNewsBreak: Labour says a senior member of staff has died "suddenly and unexpectedly" after the party began an investigation into their conduct
@ZoraSuleman: Labour confirm that a member of Labour Party staff at their HQ in Victoria has died unexpectedly. Its understood the person had been suspended from the party over misconducted relating to adult pornography
Carl Sargeant's suicide in Wales is resulting in lots of anger following allegations of a 'toxic' Welsh labour party and the appointment of an independent inquiry
Never! Just ask Kinnock and Smith senior, they will deny everything.......
I think it is more serious than that judging by the virtual daily coverage by Welsh News programmes
@SkyNewsBreak: Labour says a senior member of staff has died "suddenly and unexpectedly" after the party began an investigation into their conduct
@ZoraSuleman: Labour confirm that a member of Labour Party staff at their HQ in Victoria has died unexpectedly. Its understood the person had been suspended from the party over misconducted relating to adult pornography
The chief of staff is a war criminal sympathiser but a staffer gets suspended for a bit of grumble ?
I don't think the man has been named but according to the Sunday Times he was a man in his 30s who worked at Labour HQ in Victoria and who had been suspended from work after porn images were found on his computer .......... apparently his hobby was photoshopping celebrity faces onto porn images ...........
The Sunday Times says he apparently took his own life
I don't think the man has been named but according to the Sunday Times he was a man in his 30s who worked at Labour HQ in Victoria and who had been suspended from work after porn images were found on his computer .......... apparently his hobby was photoshopping celebrity faces onto porn images ...........
The Sunday Times says he apparently took his own life
The strongest argument I would make for retaining our Security Council seat, like Trident, is we need it for as long the French have it.
In a democracy the state is merely the ultimate expression of the will of the people. So if the country loses powers on the international stage then it is ultimately the citizens that are losing those powers.
What I find curious about the American right is the warrior cult surrounding the armed forces as individualism is anathema to its ethos. In many ways the US Army is actually the most socialist element of American government and society.
It's not just the right, though. It's quite striking how much of American TV - including things like normal local news in liberal areas - is dedicated to glorifying the military.
I don't think the man has been named but according to the Sunday Times he was a man in his 30s who worked at Labour HQ in Victoria and who had been suspended from work after porn images were found on his computer .......... apparently his hobby was photoshopping celebrity faces onto porn images ...........
The Sunday Times says he apparently took his own life
seen elsewhere on internet
They suspend someone for porn but leave Emma Dent Coad with the whip. So it is fine to be a racist bigot but not a w*nker.
Why would that shock anyone? I thought it was obvious that during the transition we would implement EEA rules for EEA access which means accepting new regulations. After the transition would be different.
You'd better tell Boris: the prospect of the perfidious EU I'm losing laws on us that we had no say on during the transition period was one of his red lines.
I don't think the man has been named but according to the Sunday Times he was a man in his 30s who worked at Labour HQ in Victoria and who had been suspended from work after porn images were found on his computer .......... apparently his hobby was photoshopping celebrity faces onto porn images ...........
The Sunday Times says he apparently took his own life
seen elsewhere on internet
They suspend someone for porn but leave Emma Dent Coad with the whip. So it is fine to be a racist bigot but not a w*nker.
Any suicide is obviously tragic. But it doesn't seem that unusual to suspend someone for having porn on a work computer (if that is what this is about). In many jobs it would amount to gross misconduct and result in dismissal. I'm not sure whether an employer would have a duty of care in that type of situation.
I don't think the man has been named but according to the Sunday Times he was a man in his 30s who worked at Labour HQ in Victoria and who had been suspended from work after porn images were found on his computer .......... apparently his hobby was photoshopping celebrity faces onto porn images ...........
The Sunday Times says he apparently took his own life
seen elsewhere on internet
They suspend someone for porn but leave Emma Dent Coad with the whip. So it is fine to be a racist bigot but not a w*nker.
Someone who should be suspended pending further investigation is the Labour party official who advised Bex Bailey not to go to the police with a rape allegation.
That suspension should have already happened while the facts are being established.
I suspect we’ll never hear anything about it again -- though it is by far the most serious allegation to have emerged in any of the parties
I don't think the man has been named but according to the Sunday Times he was a man in his 30s who worked at Labour HQ in Victoria and who had been suspended from work after porn images were found on his computer .......... apparently his hobby was photoshopping celebrity faces onto porn images ...........
The Sunday Times says he apparently took his own life
seen elsewhere on internet
They suspend someone for porn but leave Emma Dent Coad with the whip. So it is fine to be a racist bigot but not a w*nker.
Any suicide is obviously tragic. But it doesn't seem that unusual to suspend someone for having porn on a work computer (if that is what this is about). In many jobs it would amount to gross misconduct and result in dismissal. I'm not sure whether an employer would have a duty of care in that type of situation.
Indeed it was probably the right course of action to suspend the man in question. But my point was rather that they don't seem to be applying basic moral standards throughout the Labour Party. If you are going to do the right thing with one person, you have to do the right thing with anyone else who fails to live up to acceptable standards.
Personally I think using violent imagery and racist language is far worse than having legal porn on a work computer. Admittedly if the porn wasn't legal then that situation might change.
The political issue in the UK is that it can rob some families of their family homes, and worries the rest - way below the threshold - that they might one day end up in the same position.
In the UK, it's houses. Always houses. Never touch people's homes.
Here in the US, annual property taxes can be enormous. In Texas, you pay 1.9% a year on average and New York is 1.6%. (New Jersey tops the list at 2.4% while Utah is just 0.7%).
But let's say you own a home worth $500,000. That's $12,500/year in property taxes in New Jersey. If you're an income of $30,000/year, you're not staying in that half million dollar house.
Our current system seems designed to discourage the efficient allocation of a scarce resource (land and housing). That's economically dumb.
Who determines the value of a house?
Thats a good question. I assume it isn't the open market value.
Purchase price (or transfer price)
That would put a mammoth disincentive to ever move house.
In France they have a terrific system. You self declare the value of your home. But the government has the right to buy it at a 25% premium to declared value.
And every year, half a dozen of the worst offenders see their homes bought (and then sold at a profit to taxpayers).
On topic, these numbers tell me that a new general election would be very close.
The Conservatives should clearly win against Jeremy Corbyn, however, but in my view they should focus on the 30-45 year old age bracket, because I very much doubt they'll ever makes serious inroads into the under 30s, particularly whilst Corbyn (the Messiah) is leader.
Agreed, there are a lot of 30-50 year old people who are open to our ideas, but I don't think Theresa is the right leader to bring them into our camp. I don't know who is, but I know it's not Theresa.
Yet Theresa now looks much stronger than 6 weeks ago. Things can change so quickly.
She might even last beyond 2019 now.
Let's say Brexit goes ok. There is no recession. We transition to a good enough trading relationship with the EU, she banks a few populist wins post-Brexit with quick trade deals, blue passports, new immigration rules, and the economy recovers due to The Certainty, the new houses are in place, plus a new leader takes over 6 months out to GE2022.
Corbyn certainly wouldn't be a slam-dunk.
Or Brexit could go wonderfully but she could get slammed with a typical cyclical recession in 2020.
Events, dear boy.
Indeed so. Or, that might not happen.
Brexit was supposed to (at best) lead to stagnation, or a mild recession. Instead the latest OBR forecasts show growth continuing throughout, and we have the lowest unemployment in over 40 years.
I'm not making predictions - those who do turn out to either look like geniuses or idiots, and largely by fluke - but I am saying it could quite credibly happen.
The latest forecasts literally show stagnation. Growth below inflation, and wage growth worse. That's not entirely to do with Brexit, but it is a bit, as it has increased inflation and uncertainty and is consuming government time and resources. Unemployment is low because self employment is now at a record high, and that has everything to do with technology. The worrying thing, whether Tory or Labour is that we're addressing old issues rather than real ones.
Growth forecasts are in real terms
I once once in a meeting with the CEO of Philips where he boasted sales growth was above economic growth.
What I find curious about the American right is the warrior cult surrounding the armed forces as individualism is anathema to its ethos. In many ways the US Army is actually the most socialist element of American government and society.
It's not just the right, though. It's quite striking how much of American TV - including things like normal local news in liberal areas - is dedicated to glorifying the military.
It is all the more strange considering it is geography that has largely protected the US from any existential threat and the founding fathers did not intend America to have a standing army.
Why would that shock anyone? I thought it was obvious that during the transition we would implement EEA rules for EEA access which means accepting new regulations. After the transition would be different.
You'd better tell Boris: the prospect of the perfidious EU I'm losing laws on us that we had no say on during the transition period was one of his red lines.
It is also the Independent, who were (I think deliberately) misrepresenting the animal sentience vote just a couple of days ago - which interpretation was nonetheless swallowed by an outrage busload of gullible celebs and their followers.
If a newspaper has less authority as a news source than the Beano, do not believe it until you have a reliable source - either a trusted news source or a trusted individual.
I would say that in this case just the text of the article shows that they have sight of a draft paper from the EU side, which has not yet been presented - so no demands have been made yet and the headline is at best misleading.
Jon Stone has a good reputation for me, so I would say it is an overreaching headline writer.
Comments
How ‘pop-up’ brothels transformed Britain’s suburban sex industry
MPs are investigating a surge in flats being used short-term for prostitution – but the women who work in them say they often have no safer option.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/25/pop-up-brothels-britain-sex-industry-suburban?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/faulty-towers-understanding-the-impact-of-overseas-corruption-on-the-london-property-market/#.WhmHNzdpFhE
Of course they use services funded by Council Tax - do they not have rubbish to clear ? Might they not have children or grandchildren in education ? Might they not use the local library ?
We don't operate a contract arrangement where you only pay for the services you use. I have no involvement in education but I pay toward Newham's schools and adult education.
Anyone can cite an isolated example to prove a point but it is, I would argue, isolated and it doesn't invalidate the point that it is grossly unfair that someone living in a £1 million house pays the same Council Tax as someone living in a £350k house.
Most people have done very little to increase the value of their properties - they have relied on a distorted housing market to drive up the value of their asset.
For me it's the most logical explanation why a Texan - not exactly a stereotypical socialist - doesn't bat an eyelid at a 1.9% annual property tax yet the mere thought of it is enough to send us into spasms over here in GB.
I spent a fair bit of time in the US for work and our national obsession with home ownership does sometimes feel oddly parallel to the American obsession with gun ownership, in the way it is an irrational shibboleth. And most of continental Europe is happy to rent.
I think when people like Ed Miliband make a case for land value tax and so on, their mistake is to to treat it as a rational problem to be solved rather than the emotive issue it actually is.
Nigel Farage 'Plays Race Fear Card' With Inaccurate Story About Swedish Joggers
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-sweden-armed-police_uk_5a18271fe4b0d4906cae5902
In London the average house price is £482 000 and in the South East it is £320 000.
In the North East it is just £130 000 and for the whole of England it is £240 000, less than half the average London price.
In Wales the average is £152,000, in Scotland £144,000 and in Northern Ireland £129 000.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/june2017
But in the long run we all benefit if scarce resources are allocated efficiently.
I personally would get rid of IHT and impose a small annual charge of 0.25% on gross assets. It would discourage excessive leverage, be fairer for people with family businesses, farms. etc., and encourage people to use assets sensibly.
The Electoral Commission has denied a claim by Vote Leave’s chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, that it had given them “a letter of permission” to make the donations to other campaigns, which are now under investigation.
The commission announced a new investigation last week into donations Vote Leave made of £625,000 to BeLeave and £100,000 to Veterans for Britain, and whether the officially sanctioned organisation had exceeded its official spending limits.
Cummings had previously claimed that the Electoral Commission gave them permission “in writing” to make the donations. However, following months of Freedom of Information requests, the commission has now said it had no record of it.
It said it had looked at all correspondence between Cummings/Vote Leave and the commission during the regulated period of the referendum (from April to June) and said: “We can’t find any record of any exchange with us on the subject of donations from that period.”
Cummings failed to respond to the Observer when asked him if he had any explanation for the discrepancy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/electoral-body-rejects-claim-by-vote-leave-that-it-allowed-donations?CMP=twt_gu
Sunil got £650,000???
We should be told!
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/934471786145689600
If your parents never need residential care you won't have to sell the family home to pay for adult social care either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/britain-falls-behind-most-of-europe-for-home-ownership/
Rubicon
Reading Mark Antony's will
Are the ones I've done so far. I believe seizing Boudicca's legacy is the next one
It's not exactly scientific, but this http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/couple-decide-to-stop-being-friends-with-people-who-rent-20171115139143 pretty much sums it up.
Plenty of other nations buy houses, but none seem quite so obsessed by it as the British.
I don't think it's very different in the States. How many Americans with some degree of success don't own a property, with the possible exception of Manhattan residents?
That bitch Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese generals should be hauled up to the ICJ in the Hague.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
Aside from the obvious class distinction there seems to be a psychological element of sovereignty contained within the ideal of the home in the UK. How else can you explain the ubiquitous "dads in sheds" phenomenon (Even David Cameron has a posh one) other than "The Mrs rules the roost in the house now, and I have a psychological need for my own sovereign territory, even if it is a dilapidated old shed with a leaky roof".
Come to think of it there may be some overlap with the psychology of Brexit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
R vs Gina Miller I believe....
Well we would lose the right to say "I live in a country that is a permanent member of the security council", for starters.
Having a major tax whereby someone is paying potentially ten times the tax just because they bought recently versus decades ago would be totally unfair and especially punitive on the younger housebuyers who would be lumped with much greater taxes.
On the other hand, it is the poorer/ more vulnerable who use the Council services you describe, and tend to live in cheaper properties therefore pay less tax, ie £1k per annum. Of course, we live in society and it is right that those who can afford it, pay.
The fact that someone lives in a house that is notionally expensive does not mean that they are an unlimited source of free money. They may in reality have no spare money. Certainly that is the case in London where a lot of people fall in to the category of having a very expensive property (due to the fact they have been there for 20+ years) but a modest income. In fact, public services in London largely survive on this declining pool of people (along with immigrant labour).
This is not at all unique to London. It is everywhere in the south east. I live in a modest neighbourhood where houses that were worth £200k five years ago now sell for £400k. Most of the people who live there are on modest local incomes. Is it fair to double their council tax just because the notional value of the houses has gone up? They aren't to blame for the dysfunctional housing market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power
The strongest argument I would make for retaining our Security Council seat, like Trident, is we need it for as long the French have it.
An impeccable argument.
Council tax should be able local services and broadly similar
Redistribution is the job of income tax
@ZoraSuleman: Labour confirm that a member of Labour Party staff at their HQ in Victoria has died unexpectedly. Its understood the person had been suspended from the party over misconducted relating to adult pornography
If you are going to be a pedant, TSE...
And if that Commissioner is urging continued UK single market membership, isn't he out of step with Tusk, who says the UK absolutely cannot remain in the single market.
And isn't that a Commissioner running a Brexit policy 100% opposed to that of the Council? In domestic politics, that would Priti much be the end of a minister
But you can see some of those socialist elements in the far right militias you see "on patrol" sometimes. The right to organise collectively (and scare the hell out of other people) in order to defend personal liberty.
The Sunday Times says he apparently took his own life
seen elsewhere on internet
That suspension should have already happened while the facts are being established.
I suspect we’ll never hear anything about it again -- though it is by far the most serious allegation to have emerged in any of the parties
Personally I think using violent imagery and racist language is far worse than having legal porn on a work computer. Admittedly if the porn wasn't legal then that situation might change.
And every year, half a dozen of the worst offenders see their homes bought (and then sold at a profit to taxpayers).
If a newspaper has less authority as a news source than the Beano, do not believe it until you have a reliable source - either a trusted news source or a trusted individual.
I would say that in this case just the text of the article shows that they have sight of a draft paper from the EU side, which has not yet been presented - so no demands have been made yet and the headline is at best misleading.
Jon Stone has a good reputation for me, so I would say it is an overreaching headline writer.