Nice one DAVE........

[Lammy]

...and there's another thing. How do people reach the conclusion that government policy is responsible for house prices?

They are in the fact that the economy is strong, we are all earning more money and thus house prices go up.

But more directly Stamp duty is too high.

Up to and including £60,000 = nil

Over £60,000 but not more than £250,000 = 1%

Over £250,000 but not more than £500,000 = 3%

Over £500,000 = 4%


What the hell can you buy for £60,000?

If I was a first time buyer looking to buy a house/flat for a conservative £130,000 I would need to save between £6,500 and £13,000 for he deposit. I would need to save about another £1000 for fees. If that wasn't bad enough the government thinks it is right that I need to pay an extra £1300 just for the righ to buy somewhere to live! Not exactely a luxury good!

Second homes are a luxury and should have VAT charged.

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

They have raised the stamp duty threshold to 120K now. I agree though, it's probably not high enough -- and second home owners should frankly be taxed until they can't feel their testicles.

But do you really think the Tories would have brought in key worker housing faster then?

:thud:

 

[Lammy]

True, but the Govt. have reaped millions of punds from the rise in House prices.

I was using house prices as an example. A house is a relatively safe 'investment' and the obstacles that the younger generation face in getting onto the market, with extra costs that they have faced. Only now have the government started to address this with affordable/key worker housing. What if you are not a key worker!?

They have also reaped a huge sum from high oil prices and more and more people entring the higher tax bracket which has remained un changed for years. They need to move super tax to £40,000 IMHO

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Do you really think the Tories would have brought in key worker housing faster then?

:thud:

Not at all, although that is speculation. I was noting that Labour have only acted upon this now. I don't have another government to test them against, during this 7 year(?) boom.

 

[desprateseagull]

seems nice ideals, though how exactly are they all going to be funded??

and as for the death tax, how do the families left behind settle this, WITHOUT selling up? (assumes no insurance in place).

 

[Bluejuice]

Nice idea but doesn't it smack of desperation?

"Help, our party has become a laughing stock so lets promise to make life cheaper for everyone"

Er, at who's expense eh Dave? Oh that's right, run public services into the ground again. Top work.

Remember British Rail?

Remember when train travel was affordable?

Do me a lemon. And much as I appreciate the Labour party are probably as unpopular now as they've ever been during Blair's time in office I genuinely can't see a shock at the next general election.

I'm all for the Tories picking up popularity and making a dent in Labours majority, it's about time this government had some competition, but I don't think we're shot of this government yet. We're getting a new prime minister, but he's still red.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Yeah I was WELL f***ed OFF that Mr Brown got £1200 of my money when I bought a flat for £120k.

 

[Rougvie]

They have raised the stamp duty threshold to 120K now. I agree though, it's probably not high enough -- and second home owners should frankly be taxed until they can't feel their testicles.

Why ?

I have to declare renting out my flat in Brighton and pay tax on the earnings as I live in my other property isnt that enough ??

So much of this tax everybody that has dared to invest to try and make some money is pretty childish.

 

[Lammy]

They have raised the stamp duty threshold to 120K now. I agree though, it's probably not high enough -- and second home owners should frankly be taxed until they can't feel their testicles.

But do you really think the Tories would have brought in key worker housing faster then?

:thud:

Whoops, you're right. Type stamp duty in google and is points you to the 2003 levels! Doh!

Here are the current levels;

Zero 	£0 - £125,000
1% 	Over £125,000 - £250,000
3% 	Over £250,000 - £500,000
4% 	Over £500,000

 

[Sid James]

If this 80s revival really starts up, I'm going to buy a pair of sky blue Lois cords and a Sergio Tacchini t-shirt from Wisdens.

True and funny. My cap is doffed MoH.

 

[DTES]

Why ?

I have to declare renting out my flat in Brighton and pay tax on the earnings as I live in my other property isnt that enough ??

So much of this tax everybody that has dared to invest to try and make some money is pretty childish.

Because St. Dave has promised to rescue the NHS. And he's got to cover the £21bn he's already lost from Income Tax, then plus whatever it takes for the NHS.

But obviously it won't happen, because secretly the money is going to come from nowhere. Or it's all going to be privatised. Or it's all a "pipe-dream" (copyright FG). Well, it does have to be one of them, doesn't it?

 

[Lammy]

Why ?

I have to declare renting out my flat in Brighton and pay tax on the earnings as I live in my other property isnt that enough ??

So much of this tax everybody that has dared to invest to try and make some money is pretty childish.

I have to disagree with you here. The reason that owning a second home is different to other investments is because it takes a HOME off the market for a first time buyer. The sort of accomodation purchased as buy-to-let are usually in the same price bracket as those people looking to get on the ladder. The governments solution is to build more homes in the south east, thus putting MORE pressure on water, schools, hospitals etc.

Much better to invest in other ways.

That being said I have nothing personally against anyone doing as you are as it is an easy, reasonably risk free way of investing. If I had he money I'd probably do the same. However, I don't think it should be made easy by government policy. As most MPs are landlords this is unlikely to change.

But this is going off topic a bit here.

 

[London Calling]

At the last election, despite a;; the hype of the Tories saying they would cut this service cut that tax etc.

The difference in tax revenue between all of the threee parties, with the Lib Dems starting on 100% was a huge 0.2%

The parties are all committed to the same big spending agencies (issues) eg Defence, basic social security, minimum level of local services, the NHS.

 

[The Large One]

Why ?

I have to declare renting out my flat in Brighton and pay tax on the earnings as I live in my other property isnt that enough ??

So much of this tax everybody that has dared to invest to try and make some money is pretty childish.

You can claim most of it back though. Even a dyed-in-the-wool gullible trueblue boy knows that.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem paying tax if I though it was going to do society a lot of good. It's not the paying taxes that gets my craw, it's not being convinced that it is being spent as it was supposed to be spent.

 

[Hannibal smith]

I can only speak from personal experience, but the moral at the RSCH, is at an all time low. Ward mangers and their number twos are having to re apply for their jobs at present, as two wards are closing. That tied in with the lack of social care or rehab places in the community, adds to what is continually called bed blocking.

Whilst Wards closing are clearly a bad thing, Its not such a bad state of affairs if Ward managers and their deputies are being asked to re-apply for their jobs. What on earth does a ward manager do? My experience of the NHS is an army of people wandering around with clipboards whose responsibilities seem to extend to drinking coffee and munching on chocolate. Meanwhile, consultants and nurses look like they haven’t slept for 24 hours and on the verge on a nervous breakdown with a workload which would stretch anyone. Anything that reduces the administrative burden and may increase numbers of staff that actually do work – I’m all for it.

As for the Tory policies – Looks like the Daily Mail, Tebbit and the like have got want they wanted. Tax cuts. Brilliant. The footballing equivalent of resorting to the long ball tactic after 15 minutes.

 

[The Large One]

At the last election, despite a;; the hype of the Tories saying they would cut this service cut that tax etc.

The difference in tax revenue between all of the threee parties, with the Lib Dems starting on 100% was a huge 0.2%

The parties are all committed to the same big spending agencies (issues) eg Defence, basic social security, minimum level of local services, the NHS.

I think the vast majority have now seen through this ongoing bribe which the Tories persistently hark back to regarding 'tax cuts'. It assisted in their downfall, and, especially as for pretty much the first time, Labour has been shown to be able to handle the economy (it's not a battleground the Tories can WIN back from them - it would be a battleground for Labour to LOSE), no-one trusts them any more with their reckless policies.

 

[Lammy]

At the last election, despite a;; the hype of the Tories saying they would cut this service cut that tax etc.

The difference in tax revenue between all of the threee parties, with the Lib Dems starting on 100% was a huge 0.2%

The parties are all committed to the same big spending agencies (issues) eg Defence, basic social security, minimum level of local services, the NHS.

Yep, you can't fit a cigarette paper between them really. The difference is HOW they get this tax. The preseent government seems to enjoy making it as hard as possible for young people to get off the ground.

1) Hit them with huge debts from Uni.
2) Charge Stamp duty on their first home
3) Once they begin to find their feet and just get on top of their debts and mortgage hit them with super tax.

It would be much better for the economy (IMHO) if the young and educated were able to get up and running much quicker. Maybe start their own businesses etc.

 

[The Large One]

Yep, you can't fit a cigarette paper between them really. The difference is HOW they get this tax. The preseent government seems to enjoy making it as hard as possible for young people to get off the ground.

1) Hit them with huge debts from Uni.
2) Charge Stamp duty on their first home
3) Once they begin to find their feet and just get on top of their debts and mortgage hit them with super tax.

It would be much better for the economy (IMHO) if the young and educated were able to get up and running much quicker. Maybe start their own businesses etc.

Hang on, you can't have it both ways.

On one hand, you're moaning about the tax burden that this horrid government has foisted upon the people, then when a government comes along and says that individuals must pay for their own education, taking the burden off of the state, you moan again. Someone's got to pay for University education - who do you think it should be?

And as you pointed out, Stamp Duty only kick in on house sales over £125,000. Who could afford a great deal more anyway. At least Labour brought the cost of Stamp Duty down.

And what's Super Tax? That 98% tax brought in 40 years ago and abolished 25 years ago?

 

[London Calling]

Yep, you can't fit a cigarette paper between them really. The difference is HOW they get this tax. The preseent government seems to enjoy making it as hard as possible for young people to get off the ground.

1) Hit them with huge debts from Uni.
2) Charge Stamp duty on their first home
3) Once they begin to find their feet and just get on top of their debts and mortgage hit them with super tax.

It would be much better for the economy (IMHO) if the young and educated were able to get up and running much quicker. Maybe start their own businesses etc.

The main problem Lammy, is the lack of affordable housing as we have discussed before. What can be done. The state is not prepared to subsidise it any more. The private sector wants to maintain as high as price as possible, so the building companies build the minimum neccessary. The rental private market has declined as landlords have sold stock to new buyers. Thus the prices have risen!

If the Govt (local authorities) build more public stock, people will just buy them under Right to Buy and achieve a minimum of 30% of the price.

Key worker housing is working a bit in London but people are selling to make a quick buck.

Unless Right to buy is stopped - which no party will entertain - cheap housing is lost for ever!

LC

 

[The Large One]

£21bn package of tax cuts.

Reducing the basic income tax rate from 22% to 20%.

Scrapping the 10p starting tax rate and raising tax-free earnings

Abolish stamp duty on shares, cutting business taxes and replacing inheritance tax with a "capital gains tax on death" - which would not be levied on family homes.

And best of all, nothing for Asylum seekers until they prove they are genuine.


Looks like BROWN better find himself some alternative employment.

Getting all the way back to this diatribe, I would look forward with a certain amount of horror (and schadenfreude-type glee when the vast majority see straight through it) when George Osborne explains how this is all going to be paid for.