I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
My magic bullet (on the assumption that actually building fuckloads more houses andninfastructure in a sustainable way is too hard a problem) is to carefully unpick the half dozen or so things that occurred between the mid 80s and 90s that enabled the Buy To Let mortgage to become viable.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
I have rented three times in my life for a total of three and three quarter years. Three year tenancies would have completely stuffed me.
The renter doesn't have to stay for 3 years. The landlord has to guarantee 3 years if they want it.
Then I can see a lot of properties being left empty rather than rented out.
Then I don't see banks extending buy to let mortgages then. Boom, problem solved I am a genius.
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that:
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings. 2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model. 3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves. 4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution. 5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country. 6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing. 7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies. 8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment.
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
On the topic of a graduate tax: wasn’t one of the problems the fact that we couldn’t discriminate between U.K. nationals and those from the rest of the EU, so any students from the rest of the EU who came here would get a free education and only pay a graduate tax if they were employed here? In which case this is something that could potentially be revisited after Brexit.
Thinking about it I’m probably missing something important here as if this were true the leave campaign would have used it already.
At the moment they can get loans which they will never repay unless they are daft enough to work in the UK after graduation. Which makes a double hit for us if you think about it. In the case of non EU students fees are paid up front to the University and repayment of that is their problem. EU students should be the same post Brexit.
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that:
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings. 2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model. 3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves. 4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution. 5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country. 6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing. 7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies. 8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment.
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
Walmart is the prime source of damage to small town US. That Bezos thinks that Trump is a liar and a moron and the WT publishes such views is of course wholly coincidental to abusing Amazon. If the WT was supine, Amazon wouldn’t be a target.
Is it not the Washington Post he owns rather than the Times?
'The dementia tax is dead in terms of personal social care (though for residential care the family home is already assessed for care costs anyway) most likely higher National Insurance or some new insurance system will be proposed as an alternative
When are we likely to finally see the almost mythical green paper on this?'
I accept there is no chance of this government addressing it but we do have to accept that you cannot carry on taxing younger working renters to pay for the social care - including home care - of people who are asset rich to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds and possibly millions in terms of the home they own.
We have a system now whereby someone on a state pension renting a council flat who inherits £40k from a friend has to pay 100% of their home care costs - because their money is in a bank account - but someone on a state pension who owns a £3 million house and has £22k in savings gets it free. Because apparently a house - unlike any other asset - isn't seen as something that can be turned into cash (via equity release or a charge placed on it).
The same logic applies to pension credit and council tax support for over 65s. A 65 year old who has £9k in savings and owns a £5m house in Richmond upon Thames can get pension credit and pay no council tax - a 65 year old with £16k in savings but who owns a £30k flat in Rotherham gets no pension credit and pays part or all of their council tax. Its unfair bordering on evil frankly!
Why in these straightened times should the value of a family home be exempt from the means test - particularly when said home could be worth millions? Just because it was badly sold in June 2017 by Mrs May doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. You just need politicians being honest with people - we cannot carry on taxing hard work and incomes to death while ignoring unearned wealth from house price inflation.
And in terms of social care lets have one entity responsible - the NHS continuing care (free) vs council social care (means tested) arbitrary boundary which causes so much misery and confusion needs to be looked at. Let the NHS run social care and health care - and end the current crazy postcode lottery where levels of provision and charges vary massively even in neighbouring council areas. Why not have one consistent system in England rather than 150!
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that:
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings. 2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model. 3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves. 4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution. 5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country. 6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing. 7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies. 8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment.
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
Doesn't sound like that is going to have much impact on the first time buyers market. In Scotland you already pay additional CT on a second property. Is that the same in England?
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Although I liked the betting logic behind Alastair Meeks' piece and invested accordingly, I too was taken aback by his extraordinary use of the description "far right" to any convert away from Sweden's "cradle to grave" socialist culture. It probably says more about Alastair's own political convictions than about the political divide in present day Sweden.
I guess one man's far right party that was founded by ex Waffen SS vets, activists of the Nordic Reich party & white nationalists is another man's converts from cradle to grave socialist culture.
Afaics the SDs have exploited welfare cuts by the last conservative government ('bloody immigrants taking your giros') and are in fact promising increased spending on health and the elderly, hardly true converts to the down with socialism cause.
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that:
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings. 2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model. 3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves. 4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution. 5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country. 6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing. 7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies. 8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment.
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
Doesn't sound like that is going to have much impact on the first time buyers market. In Scotland you already pay additional CT on a second property. Is that the same in England?
I believe there's a 3% SDLT surcharge on second properties.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
There are practical problems to this. Many properties that are rented out are leasehold flats. The lease will have a restriction to the length of time it can be continually rented: mine is two years. An AST of six months with an option to renew fits this nicely and enables me to rent out my flat if I get a job elsewhere in the country. But three-year-tenancies would kill that idea stone dead.
The leasehold system should, of course, be done away with. Its existence is a scandal.
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
Doesn't sound like that is going to have much impact on the first time buyers market. In Scotland you already pay additional CT on a second property. Is that the same in England?
I believe there's a 3% SDLT surcharge on second properties.
That's presumably a 1 off. The additional Scottish charge is an annual event.
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Although I liked the betting logic behind Alastair Meeks' piece and invested accordingly, I too was taken aback by his extraordinary use of the description "far right" to any convert away from Sweden's "cradle to grave" socialist culture. It probably says more about Alastair's own political convictions than about the political divide in present day Sweden.
The Swedish Democrats have taken a leaf out of Leave's book, and the £350 million per week tagline.
They want the Welfare State to prioritise health services for elderly Swedes over migrants. A perfectly valid policy, but not an anti welfare one.
Personally I would favour a significant reduction in the size of our university sector coupled with the return of proper technical education at university level.
We do not need 50% of our 18 year olds going to study degrees. All we are doing is providing work for academics in subjects that are too often of questionable worth to the development of our economy and cultural life.
What we do need is an increase in technical skills.
Reducing the number of students will take some pressure of the rented housing sectors in our university towns and cities.
And if this sounds like a plan to return us to the days of Universities and Polytechnics - it is. It was a system that worked.
We do need a strong set of academically challenging university courses. And we do need strong technical education at all levels.
What we don't need is people doing degrees because they have been told they are necessary. Too often they are not. It has created bloat in our university sector.
As the song from Avenue Q goes...
What do you do with a B.A. in English? What is my life going to be? Four years of college, And plenty of knowledge, Have earned me this useless degree!
(Now I am not saying that all English degrees are useless...)
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
My magic bullet (on the assumption that actually building fuckloads more houses andninfastructure in a sustainable way is too hard a problem) is to carefully unpick the half dozen or so things that occurred between the mid 80s and 90s that enabled the Buy To Let mortgage to become viable.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
I have rented three times in my life for a total of three and three quarter years. Three year tenancies would have completely stuffed me.
The renter doesn't have to stay for 3 years. The landlord has to guarantee 3 years if they want it.
Then I can see a lot of properties being left empty rather than rented out.
So landlords want no rent at all rather than a guaranteed rent for 3 years? Really?
Any sensible landlord wants reliable long term tenants who pay up and look after the place because they are there long term. Only the idiots want to keep pushing rents up - forcing tenants out - and then end up with voids and the cost of reletting the place every 6 months or a year.
And frankly if people choose to leave properties empty for long periods why not tax them severely. We tax things that are bad for society - so why not tax empty homes the same way. You can as with council tax have exemptions for probate etc.
No tenant will be forced to have a 3 year tenancy - but they will have the right. And most landlords with a brain will see the advantages of it.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
There are practical problems to this. Many properties that are rented out are leasehold flats. The lease will have a restriction to the length of time it can be continually rented: mine is two years. An AST of six months with an option to renew fits this nicely and enables me to rent out my flat if I get a job elsewhere in the country. But three-year-tenancies would kill that idea stone dead.
The leasehold system should, of course, be done away with. Its existence is a scandal.
For houses yes, not for flats as the vast majority of flats sold are leasehold and the freehold is held by the owner of the apartment building
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Although I liked the betting logic behind Alastair Meeks' piece and invested accordingly, I too was taken aback by his extraordinary use of the description "far right" to any convert away from Sweden's "cradle to grave" socialist culture. It probably says more about Alastair's own political convictions than about the political divide in present day Sweden.
I guess one man's far right party that was founded by ex Waffen SS vets, activists of the Nordic Reich party & white nationalists is another man's converts from cradle to grave socialist culture.
Afaics the SDs have exploited welfare cuts by the last conservative government ('bloody immigrants taking your giros') and are in fact promising increased spending on health and the elderly, hardly true converts to the down with socialism cause.
Indeed. I don’t recognise Vinny’s account reflecting many of the young people I know, either... We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement...
Walmart is the prime source of damage to small town US. That Bezos thinks that Trump is a liar and a moron and the WT publishes such views is of course wholly coincidental to abusing Amazon. If the WT was supine, Amazon wouldn’t be a target.
Is it? Most of Walmart is out of town and Walmart is the biggest employer in the USA and employs more people than Amazon with arguably better working conditions than an Amazon warehouse.
Wholly online deliveries threaten all retailers, including Walmart
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that:
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings. 2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model. 3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves. 4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution. 5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country. 6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing. 7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies. 8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment. .
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
Doesn't sound like that is going to have much impact on the first time buyers market. In Scotland you already pay additional CT on a second property. Is that the same in England?
Yes but it is not enough by some distance and of course I am in Wales, not England
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
My magic bullet (on the assumption that actually building fuckloads more houses andninfastructure in a sustainable way is too hard a problem) is to carefully unpick the half dozen or so things that occurred between the mid 80s and 90s that enabled the Buy To Let mortgage to become viable.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
I have rented three times in my life for a total of three and three quarter years. Three year tenancies would have completely stuffed me.
The renter doesn't have to stay for 3 years. The landlord has to guarantee 3 years if they want it.
Then I can see a lot of properties being left empty rather than rented out.
So landlords want no rent at all rather than a guaranteed rent for 3 years? Really?
Any sensible landlord wants reliable long term tenants who pay up and look after the place because they are there long term. Only the idiots want to keep pushing rents up - forcing tenants out - and then end up with voids and the cost of reletting the place every 6 months or a year.
And frankly if people choose to leave properties empty for long periods why not tax them severely. We tax things that are bad for society - so why not tax empty homes the same way. You can as with council tax have exemptions for probate etc.
No tenant will be forced to have a 3 year tenancy - but they will have the right. And most landlords with a brain will see the advantages of it.
It depends upon why the landlord is letting surely? If someone is posted to work away from home for 2 years then it makes no sense to sell and makes sense to let for 2 years.
But if there's a 3 year minimum it may make sense to leave it empty.
Not everyone who lets is in the market to let forever. I think it would be reasonable for anyone with a buy-to-let mortgage to let for 3 year terms, but for people whose only home we're talking about and are on a domestic mortgage it makes no sense at all.
In fact if yours is a domestic mortgage you can get "consent to let" for a limited time that is often capped under 3 years. The maximum you can get "consent to let" for with Barclays for instance is 2 years, any longer and you'd need to remortgage as a buy to let.
Walmart is the prime source of damage to small town US. That Bezos thinks that Trump is a liar and a moron and the WT publishes such views is of course wholly coincidental to abusing Amazon. If the WT was supine, Amazon wouldn’t be a target.
Is it not the Washington Post he owns rather than the Times?
Sorry, that’s right I think. Principle remains though.
Ascribing well though thought processes to Trump is a fools’ game. Small child on a sugar high.
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
Doesn't sound like that is going to have much impact on the first time buyers market. In Scotland you already pay additional CT on a second property. Is that the same in England?
I believe there's a 3% SDLT surcharge on second properties.
That's presumably a 1 off. The additional Scottish charge is an annual event.
Yes.
Having it one-off means it penalises short-term purchases. Especially flipping (buying derelict properties, refurbishing them and then reselling them as fit to be moved into) which seems to me to be something we might want to encourage not punish.
Walmart is the prime source of damage to small town US. That Bezos thinks that Trump is a liar and a moron and the WT publishes such views is of course wholly coincidental to abusing Amazon. If the WT was supine, Amazon wouldn’t be a target.
Is it? Most of Walmart is out of town and Walmart is the biggest employer in the USA and employs more people than Amazon with arguably better working conditions than an Amazon warehouse.
Wholly online deliveries threaten all retailers, including Walmart
Walmart has wholly hollowed out small town America. That it’s out of town is the point.
'The average age of UK marriage is under 40 and of course the average age of a mother giving birth is 30 so the vast majority of parents with children living at home and still at school would not be affected if an NI rise was targeted at over 50s'
I hate any concept of age related tax rates. A 30 year old will need social care one day.
Why not just link it to wealth and earnings - why should a 50 year old earning £25k pay more NI but not a 25 year old Premiership footballer earning £150k a week?
Walmart is the prime source of damage to small town US. That Bezos thinks that Trump is a liar and a moron and the WT publishes such views is of course wholly coincidental to abusing Amazon. If the WT was supine, Amazon wouldn’t be a target.
Is it? Most of Walmart is out of town and Walmart is the biggest employer in the USA and employs more people than Amazon with arguably better working conditions than an Amazon warehouse.
Wholly online deliveries threaten all retailers, including Walmart
Walmart has wholly hollowed out small town America. That it’s out of town is the point.
'In 2013, Walmart pledged to buy $250 billion more in American-made, grown, assembled and sourced products over 10 years. Annual sales for Walmart U.S. are about $300 billion. It has also given worker $2.7 billion in raises in the last two years and ramped up its training.'
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that: (snip to avoid breaching the word limit)
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
+1 to all of those, I think. Thanks to David for initiating the discussion. I think on point 3 that there's also a consensus that some sort of insurance model is appropriate for care, so that the lottery that decides which of us turns out to need care isn't only financed by the families where it happens. I'd like to see a cross-party commission come up with proposals.
'The average age of UK marriage is under 40 and of course the average age of a mother giving birth is 30 so the vast majority of parents with children living at home and still at school would not be affected if an NI rise was targeted at over 50s'
I hate any concept of age related tax rates. A 30 year old will need social care one day.
Why not just link it to wealth and earnings - why should a 50 year old earning £25k pay more NI but not a 25 year old Premiership footballer earning £150k a week?
So what? Once a 30 year old reaches the age of 50 he will pay higher National Insurance to pay for additional costs of any future social care he may need.
A 25 year old Premiership footballer earning £150 k a week will already pay income tax of 45% on the vast majority of his earnings and has a relatively short career at the higher earning end
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that: (snip to avoid breaching the word limit)
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
+1 to all of those, I think. Thanks to David for initiating the discussion. I think on point 3 that there's also a consensus that some sort of insurance model is appropriate for care, so that the lottery that decides which of us turns out to need care isn't only financed by the families where it happens. I'd like to see a cross-party commission come up with proposals.
I would agree with this up to a point. What is unacceptable is that the general taxpayer should pick up that risk so that the inheritance of the family is not affected. That is wrong in my view but I have no problem with the family and indeed everyone else offsetting that risk with an insurance based product.
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that:
1. Pensioners should pay NI on their earnings. 2. This would be a first step to integrating NI into IT so that those who get paid by dividends also pay NI at the appropriate rate. Ideally, the level of tax you pay should not depend on your business model. 3. That pensioners who own their homes will have to pay post mortem towards their care costs if they are unlucky enough to require them and their family either chooses not to or is not able to provide the care themselves. 4. That the student loan scheme is a bit of a disaster made worse by the recent increase in the applicable interest rate and that a graduate tax would be a better solution. 5. That the likes of Amazon and Google are not paying a fair share of tax on the profits that they generate in this country. 6. That this, combined with highly excessive rates charges, is killing our conventional town centres and that this is a bad thing. 7. That our housing market, both owned and rented, is a mess and needs serious reform including doing even more to remove BTL tax advantages, better security for tenants, more public sector housing, a relaxation of affordable borrowing criteria, the encouragement of more new build etc but that there are reservations about the current help to buy policies. 8. That whilst there are many advantages in the flexibility of zero hours contracts there is also much exploitation and those on such contracts, especially for any extended period of time need more protection than they have at the moment. .
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
Doesn't sound like that is going to have much impact on the first time buyers market. In Scotland you already pay additional CT on a second property. Is that the same in England?
Yes but it is not enough by some distance and of course I am in Wales, not England
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that: (snip to avoid breaching the word limit)
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
+1 to all of those, I think. Thanks to David for initiating the discussion. I think on point 3 that there's also a consensus that some sort of insurance model is appropriate for care, so that the lottery that decides which of us turns out to need care isn't only financed by the families where it happens. I'd like to see a cross-party commission come up with proposals.
I would agree with this up to a point. What is unacceptable is that the general taxpayer should pick up that risk so that the inheritance of the family is not affected. That is wrong in my view but I have no problem with the family and indeed everyone else offsetting that risk with an insurance based product.
If you move out of your home and into residential care your home is already assessed for care costs (unless your partner or a dependant still lives there), as are your assets if you need personal care at home excluding your home.
It was including the home for liability for personal care costs when it had still been lived in which was why the dementia tax was so unpopular
I agree that we need to do something pretty serious about the housing market - both the ownership side and the rental sector. Whatever we do needs to be based on the realities of today’s economy and how it is likely to change in the future.
My magic bullet (on the assumption that actually building fuckloads more houses andninfastructure in a sustainable way is too hard a problem) is to carefully unpick the half dozen or so things that occurred between the mid 80s and 90s that enabled the Buy To Let mortgage to become viable.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
I have rented three times in my life for a total of three and three quarter years. Three year tenancies would have completely stuffed me.
The renter doesn't have to stay for 3 years. The landlord has to guarantee 3 years if they want it.
Then I can see a lot of properties being left empty rather than rented out.
So landlords want no rent at all rather than a guaranteed rent for 3 years? Really?
Any sensible landlord wants reliable long term tenants who pay up and look after the place because they are there long term. Only the idiots want to keep pushing rents up - forcing tenants out - and then end up with voids and the cost of reletting the place every 6 months or a year.
And frankly if people choose to leave properties empty for long periods why not tax them severely. We tax things that are bad for society - so why not tax empty homes the same way. You can as with council tax have exemptions for probate etc.
No tenant will be forced to have a 3 year tenancy - but they will have the right. And most landlords with a brain will see the advantages of it.
The issue with long tenancies is that they don’t take account of modern work patterns, on both sides.
Say I live in one city, and get a 12 month contract to work in another city that isn’t commutable, I’d want to rent out my house furnished and rent in the other city for the year, rather than leaving mine empty and staying in an hotel - and definitely more than selling and moving to another city with all the attendant costs.
An awful lot of private residential landlords fit into this category, including myself.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
There are practical problems to this. Many properties that are rented out are leasehold flats. The lease will have a restriction to the length of time it can be continually rented: mine is two years. An AST of six months with an option to renew fits this nicely and enables me to rent out my flat if I get a job elsewhere in the country. But three-year-tenancies would kill that idea stone dead.
The leasehold system should, of course, be done away with. Its existence is a scandal.
For houses yes, not for flats as the vast majority of flats sold are leasehold and the freehold is held by the owner of the apartment building
In Scotland flats are (for all intents and purposes) sold with a shared freehold.
Dog eat dog in the nasty party at the moment. Though Zak calling someone unprincipled is taking irony to amusing new levels
I am no fan of Duncan, who is one of my local MP's, rude and invisible in his constituency.
He is however one of the staunchest Remainers in government, so useful support to Hunt at the FCO.
How can you be rude and invisible? Surely if you are the latter no one would notice the former.
I have met Duncan a few times and found him personally quite rude, but he doesn't like being in his constituency much, so he rarely gets the opportunity. It is donkey in a safe seat type security, no need to be either polite or visible to constituents.
It seems to me that there is a reasonably broad consensus on PB that: (snip to avoid breaching the word limit)
Given the range of views on here I think that this is interesting and suggests, as @Nick was pointing out earlier, that there is not enough time given to seeking consensus as opposed to reporting rows and put downs. I would be interested to learn if this list reflects my own views too much and whether there are other areas where there might be a consensus about what needs done.
I agree with this list. I would also want to see punitive rates charged to those who own homes and leave them empty as well as a home purchased as a holiday home. We are seeing a huge rise in the purchase of older properties and replaced with multi apartment blocks attracting holiday home buyers inflating the local market.
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
+1 to all of those, I think. Thanks to David for initiating the discussion. I think on point 3 that there's also a consensus that some sort of insurance model is appropriate for care, so that the lottery that decides which of us turns out to need care isn't only financed by the families where it happens. I'd like to see a cross-party commission come up with proposals.
Such insurance would need to be compulsory, perhaps a revamped National Insurance.
Interesting thread on the Swedish Democrats here, pointing out that their rise maps better to economic dislocation in population strata and regions in relative economic decline. Their growth to 13% in the polls preceeded the 2015 migration crisis, and links better to "make work pay" changes to the Welfare State. Worth a read, and quite a few parallels in other parts of the world:
'If you move out of your home and into residential care your home is already assessed for care costs (unless your partner or a dependant still lives there), as are your assets if you need personal care at home excluding your home.
It was including the home for liability for personal care costs when it had still been lived in which was why the dementia tax was so unpopular'
But it is perfectly ok to use your life savings to pay for your home care - why is one asset (money in a savings account) different to another asset (held in a house)? I don't see why someone with £40k in the bank who rents a council flat has to pay 100% of the costs of their home care - but someone who owns a £5m house but only has £22k in the bank gets their home care for free assuming they both live on a state pension.
In the latter case the person does not need to lose their home when they are alive - but the state can place a charge on the property so that when they die or sell up the taxpayer gets their money back and their relatives get a bit less inheritance. Same logic with pension credits and council tax benefit.
The current system is beyond disgusting frankly! Houses should not be exempt from means testing - a 67 year old should not be getting pension credit and full council tax benefit and in due course free home care if they own a home worth hundreds of thousands or even millions. Sell up and downsize - or ensure we get the cash back when you pass on.
We haven't enough cash to provide free social care and home care to those with nothing - we certainly cannot and should not provide it free to multi millionaire property owners.
The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.
There are practical problems to this. Many properties that are rented out are leasehold flats. The lease will have a restriction to the length of time it can be continually rented: mine is two years. An AST of six months with an option to renew fits this nicely and enables me to rent out my flat if I get a job elsewhere in the country. But three-year-tenancies would kill that idea stone dead.
The leasehold system should, of course, be done away with. Its existence is a scandal.
For houses yes, not for flats as the vast majority of flats sold are leasehold and the freehold is held by the owner of the apartment building
In Scotland flats are (for all intents and purposes) sold with a shared freehold.
In which case everybody is responsible not just for paying for but carrying out maintenance for the whole apartment block
'If you move out of your home and into residential care your home is already assessed for care costs (unless your partner or a dependant still lives there), as are your assets if you need personal care at home excluding your home.
It was including the home for liability for personal care costs when it had still been lived in which was why the dementia tax was so unpopular'
But it is perfectly ok to use your life savings to pay for your home care - why is one asset (money in a savings account) different to another asset (held in a house)? I don't see why someone with £40k in the bank who rents a council flat has to pay 100% of the costs of their home care - but someone who owns a £5m house but only has £22k in the bank gets their home care for free assuming they both live on a state pension.
In the latter case the person does not need to lose their home when they are alive - but the state can place a charge on the property so that when they die or sell up the taxpayer gets their money back and their relatives get a bit less inheritance. Same logic with pension credits and council tax benefit.
The current system is beyond disgusting frankly! Houses should not be exempt from means testing - a 67 year old should not be getting pension credit and full council tax benefit and in due course free home care if they own a home worth hundreds of thousands or even millions. Sell up and downsize - or ensure we get the cash back when you pass on.
We haven't enough cash to provide free social care and home care to those with nothing - we certainly cannot and should not provide it free to multi millionaire property owners.
I am afraid the voters disagree with you, especially 40 to 60 year olds who do not want to see the value of their inheritance frittered away if a relative needs personal care (and someone with £40k in the bank renting a council flat is likely to be so rare as to be almost invisible)
Comments
Within 50 yards of me a new sea front bungalow has been built at a cost of over one million and within half a mile 12 apartments and penthouses overlooking the sea and golf course are in construction with a price tag of 1.2 million, the most expensive of their kind in North Wales
When are we likely to finally see the almost mythical green paper on this?'
I accept there is no chance of this government addressing it but we do have to accept that you cannot carry on taxing younger working renters to pay for the social care - including home care - of people who are asset rich to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds and possibly millions in terms of the home they own.
We have a system now whereby someone on a state pension renting a council flat who inherits £40k from a friend has to pay 100% of their home care costs - because their money is in a bank account - but someone on a state pension who owns a £3 million house and has £22k in savings gets it free. Because apparently a house - unlike any other asset - isn't seen as something that can be turned into cash (via equity release or a charge placed on it).
The same logic applies to pension credit and council tax support for over 65s. A 65 year old who has £9k in savings and owns a £5m house in Richmond upon Thames can get pension credit and pay no council tax - a 65 year old with £16k in savings but who owns a £30k flat in Rotherham gets no pension credit and pays part or all of their council tax. Its unfair bordering on evil frankly!
Why in these straightened times should the value of a family home be exempt from the means test - particularly when said home could be worth millions? Just because it was badly sold in June 2017 by Mrs May doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. You just need politicians being honest with people - we cannot carry on taxing hard work and incomes to death while ignoring unearned wealth from house price inflation.
And in terms of social care lets have one entity responsible - the NHS continuing care (free) vs council social care (means tested) arbitrary boundary which causes so much misery and confusion needs to be looked at. Let the NHS run social care and health care - and end the current crazy postcode lottery where levels of provision and charges vary massively even in neighbouring council areas. Why not have one consistent system in England rather than 150!
Afaics the SDs have exploited welfare cuts by the last conservative government ('bloody immigrants taking your giros') and are in fact promising increased spending on health and the elderly, hardly true converts to the down with socialism cause.
They want the Welfare State to prioritise health services for elderly Swedes over migrants. A perfectly valid policy, but not an anti welfare one.
We do not need 50% of our 18 year olds going to study degrees. All we are doing is providing work for academics in subjects that are too often of questionable worth to the development of our economy and cultural life.
What we do need is an increase in technical skills.
Reducing the number of students will take some pressure of the rented housing sectors in our university towns and cities.
And if this sounds like a plan to return us to the days of Universities and Polytechnics - it is. It was a system that worked.
We do need a strong set of academically challenging university courses. And we do need strong technical education at all levels.
What we don't need is people doing degrees because they have been told they are necessary. Too often they are not. It has created bloat in our university sector.
As the song from Avenue Q goes...
What do you do with a B.A. in English?
What is my life going to be?
Four years of college,
And plenty of knowledge,
Have earned me this useless degree!
(Now I am not saying that all English degrees are useless...)
Any sensible landlord wants reliable long term tenants who pay up and look after the place because they are there long term. Only the idiots want to keep pushing rents up - forcing tenants out - and then end up with voids and the cost of reletting the place every 6 months or a year.
And frankly if people choose to leave properties empty for long periods why not tax them severely. We tax things that are bad for society - so why not tax empty homes the same way. You can as with council tax have exemptions for probate etc.
No tenant will be forced to have a 3 year tenancy - but they will have the right. And most landlords with a brain will see the advantages of it.
I don’t recognise Vinny’s account reflecting many of the young people I know, either...
We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement...
Wholly online deliveries threaten all retailers, including Walmart
But if there's a 3 year minimum it may make sense to leave it empty.
Not everyone who lets is in the market to let forever. I think it would be reasonable for anyone with a buy-to-let mortgage to let for 3 year terms, but for people whose only home we're talking about and are on a domestic mortgage it makes no sense at all.
In fact if yours is a domestic mortgage you can get "consent to let" for a limited time that is often capped under 3 years. The maximum you can get "consent to let" for with Barclays for instance is 2 years, any longer and you'd need to remortgage as a buy to let.
https://www.amortgagenow.co.uk/consent-to-let
The problem here is people assuming everyone is in the same boat. Life is more complicated.
Ascribing well though thought processes to Trump is a fools’ game. Small child on a sugar high.
Having it one-off means it penalises short-term purchases. Especially flipping (buying derelict properties, refurbishing them and then reselling them as fit to be moved into) which seems to me to be something we might want to encourage not punish.
'The average age of UK marriage is under 40 and of course the average age of a mother giving birth is 30 so the vast majority of parents with children living at home and still at school would not be affected if an NI rise was targeted at over 50s'
I hate any concept of age related tax rates. A 30 year old will need social care one day.
Why not just link it to wealth and earnings - why should a 50 year old earning £25k pay more NI but not a 25 year old Premiership footballer earning £150k a week?
He is however one of the staunchest Remainers in government, so useful support to Hunt at the FCO.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/17/walmart-jobs-donald-trump/
A 25 year old Premiership footballer earning £150 k a week will already pay income tax of 45% on the vast majority of his earnings and has a relatively short career at the higher earning end
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/howard-jacobson-speech-intelligence-squared-1.469525
What a choice
It was including the home for liability for personal care costs when it had still been lived in which was why the dementia tax was so unpopular
Say I live in one city, and get a 12 month contract to work in another city that isn’t commutable, I’d want to rent out my house furnished and rent in the other city for the year, rather than leaving mine empty and staying in an hotel - and definitely more than selling and moving to another city with all the attendant costs.
An awful lot of private residential landlords fit into this category, including myself.
Interesting thread on the Swedish Democrats here, pointing out that their rise maps better to economic dislocation in population strata and regions in relative economic decline. Their growth to 13% in the polls preceeded the 2015 migration crisis, and links better to "make work pay" changes to the Welfare State. Worth a read, and quite a few parallels in other parts of the world:
https://twitter.com/johannarickne/status/1037120512311349248?s=19
It was including the home for liability for personal care costs when it had still been lived in which was why the dementia tax was so unpopular'
But it is perfectly ok to use your life savings to pay for your home care - why is one asset (money in a savings account) different to another asset (held in a house)? I don't see why someone with £40k in the bank who rents a council flat has to pay 100% of the costs of their home care - but someone who owns a £5m house but only has £22k in the bank gets their home care for free assuming they both live on a state pension.
In the latter case the person does not need to lose their home when they are alive - but the state can place a charge on the property so that when they die or sell up the taxpayer gets their money back and their relatives get a bit less inheritance. Same logic with pension credits and council tax benefit.
The current system is beyond disgusting frankly! Houses should not be exempt from means testing - a 67 year old should not be getting pension credit and full council tax benefit and in due course free home care if they own a home worth hundreds of thousands or even millions. Sell up and downsize - or ensure we get the cash back when you pass on.
We haven't enough cash to provide free social care and home care to those with nothing - we certainly cannot and should not provide it free to multi millionaire property owners.
NEW THREAD