General Election 2015

[Lord Duckhunter]

But surely if house prices in London are failing now , the mansion tax won't bring in the amounts they claim ?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You do realise that London is overwhelmingly a Labour town, right? And I can promise you that's not because all the oligarchs were Ed Miliband fans.

 

Why more 'exclusive'? Two million is still an awful lot of money even in London.

 

The mansion tax, incidentally, has already had an effect. London house prices have fallen sharply - just on the prospect of its introduction. So far from making London more exclusive, it's actually make it more affordable.

 

 

 

Why a reduction? And why would it have a bad effect on the poorest? The 'poorest' are not queueing up to buy two-million-pound houses.

 

London is a city where the difference between Labour and Tory administrations makes a HUGE difference (as I see in my borough of Hammersmith and Fulham). If Tory regimes are in power, working class people have their houses and flats demolished for 'luxury' flats (actually little more than a bit of hotel-chic wallpaper-thin gloss, and amounting to what one London town planner called 'rich slums'). If Labour regimes are in power, social housing tends to be protected, including a great swathe of housing association homes near me, in Fulham and - surprisingly - Chelsea, that have been around since the 19th century.

 

A reduction as there will be less demand for houses over the 2 million bracket, or could attract that in a few years. That would be, generally, any 4 or 5 bed houses built in the capital. It would push down the demand onto cheaper housing, hence increasing their prices and creating a plateau of houses at a higher cost, pushing the poorest out.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Watch this from 4.30 and then come back and discuss the Mansion Tax. They haven't got a clue how it'll work, when it'll start, what the % rate will be or even name independent experts that advised them the money they'll get in.

 

It's clearly just a dog whistle to lefties.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqlog7_u3XI

[shurlock]

Are you suggesting that debt-to-income ratios in the 1980's were at 170%? No, of course not.

 

The 'acceleration' may have been similar from a small base, as you point out. But you can't just pass off "albeit from a small base" as a throw away line. It is very significant. Due to the small base, debt-to-income ratios were still generally below 100% throughout the 1980's. I don't know about you, but most economists would tell you that Debt to income ratios of

 

So the acceleration of the ratio in the 1980's is is a very different proposition to acceleration levels in the 2000's, where the ratios were already north of 130%.

(I know that you know that, but understand that you have to put up a good fight for the lefties on the forum)

To put this into laymans terms for readers of this thread, Shurlock is trying to say that accelerating from 40mph to 50mph in a 30 mph limit, is no different to accelerating from 20mph to 30mph in a 30mph limit.

 

During Brown's debt fueled boom, they reached a peak of 170%... It would be funny that so many people fell for his "prudent" bull****, if it wasn't for the fact that household debt is as big a problem as national debt. It's even funnier that people (who clearly possess some intellect) try to defend it

 

Household debt did fall to 140% a couple of years ago from the Brown peak of 170%. So things are better, but it is still clearly a problem. The OBR may claim that borrowing will go up due to the government having to live within its means (please stop using the word austerity, because living within your means is no bad thing), but can you not see that even the use of the word austerity will help fuel increased debt (as the connotations of austerity is that living within your means is a bad thing)??

 

It is this attitude that got us into the mess in the first place!!!

 

 

Your analogy is misleading insofar as it assumes that a car accelerating from 20 to 30 stops at the 30mph speed limit. But there is no evidence that household debt would not have continued to climb: a recessionary shock, not wise Tory policy forced households to deleverage and save. In the same way, household debt began to fall after the crisis under Brown; now it's rising again as the economy is fitfully recovering and all the signs are that debt ratios will leave anything presided over by Labour trailing in the dust.

 

The sooner you concede that household debt dynamics have ebbed and flowed with the economic cycle and the supply and demand for the housing (aka reflating the bubble) -rather than which party is in power, the better. Of course, measures such as Help to Buy that artificially inflate property prices by making debt financing more available havent helped;)

 

More generally, nobody disputes that heavy debt, whether household or government, weighs on economic performance; but there is no magic trip wire, some sudden discontinuity where debt suddenly becomes unsustainable, as you imply (see the near universal criticism of Rogoff and Reinhart). Indeed causation may travel in the other direction: low growth reduces tax receipts and therefore causes high debt ratios. Either way, it's not one way traffic.

 

History also shows that theres no stable relationship between public debt and GDP growth: much depends, for instance, on whether the economy is operating at capacity. In the wake of the crisis, private investors flocked to gilts and other sovereign bonds -despite low, even negative yields- for want of other safe assets. An ageing population and the need for pension funds to immunise liabilities only adds to to this demand. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/01/government-debt

 

You might not like the word austerity -perhaps it conjures up nasty images of Natalie Bennett having an episode of Tourette's. But the essential fact is that economies are still not out of the woods, as low interest rates indicate.

 

Try 'secular stagnation' if you don't like talk of austerity. When savings exceed investment and remain a constraint on demand and growth, my preference is for governments to borrow to finance the kinds of investment that will drive your third industrial revolution. Never mind that the UK can borrow money for less than half a percent for the long term in its own currency. Your alternative -to live within one's means- isn't really an alternative when the risk is of another stall.

[Hockey_saint]

"Fairness" is a very subjective word. I would suggest that traditionally the person from the working classes would consider Labour to be "fairer" since they generally had their ideals at heart whereas the Tories have always been a throwback to the days of serfdom and the have's and could traditionally count on those of the middle and upper classes believing what they stood for was "fair".

 

But of course, now we have the aspiring classes (previously called snobs) who believe themselves not to be a part of the working class and will usually vote Tory and agree with every policy they make. To counter that you now have the champagne socialists like Blair who've essentially turned labour into a Tory-lite party but have managed to win over some middle class votes.

 

So really, what I'm saying, aside from babbling is that fairness really is a pile of nonsense.

[JackFrost]

The majority of the burden shouldn't fall on the neediest and no matter how the figures are looked at the poorest 20% have shouldered a far bigger portion of the cuts.

 

After all, we are all in it together.

 

All completely subjective

 

How would you actually achieve that?

[Hockey_saint]

All completely subjective

 

How would you actually achieve that?

 

You could ask if it was the poorest who got us into this mess after all? And to be totally subjective, it seems perfectly reasonable to come down hard on the bankers, big city money men and their ilk much harder than you would, say a single, working class mother with kids and rent to pay.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I'm ready for the election now, bored of this campaign

[aintforever]

But not about our children , grand children and their children. Your " caring " society just want to kick the debt can down the road and burden future generations. Its generational theft . In times of peace and relative prosperity each generation should only spend what it generates.

 

I'm not in favour of increasing the debt, just the way the deficit is dealt with. I thought I made that quite clear.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

"Fairness" is a very subjective word. I would suggest that traditionally the person from the working classes would consider Labour to be "fairer" since they generally had their ideals at heart whereas the Tories have always been a throwback to the days of serfdom and the have's and could traditionally count on those of the middle and upper classes believing what they stood for was "fair".

 

But of course, now we have the aspiring classes (previously called snobs) who believe themselves not to be a part of the working class and will usually vote Tory and agree with every policy they make. To counter that you now have the champagne socialists like Blair who've essentially turned labour into a Tory-lite party but have managed to win over some middle class votes.

 

So really, what I'm saying, aside from babbling is that fairness really is a pile of nonsense.

 

Hahaha, in conclusion, yep.

[aintforever]

But what form should this 'caring' take? This is the fundamental difference in poitical philosophy. Do you help people by giving them handouts or is is better to give them opportunities.

 

I would say both. I'm not sure how shutting libraries, youth clubs and sacking social workers whilst giving millionaires tax breaks gives opportunities to the most needy though?

[bridge too far]

As an aside - that bastion of decency and honesty, Grant Shapps, has allegedly been telling porkies again

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/grant-shapps-accused-of-editing-wikipedia-pages-of-tory-rivals

[Lord Duckhunter]

I would say both. I'm not sure how shutting libraries, youth clubs and sacking social workers whilst giving millionaires tax breaks gives opportunities to the most needy though?

 

Do you want " millionaires " as a group of people to pay more into the pot or less? Do you judge fairness in terms of total tax take that we get from millionaires or the headline rate they pay?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

As an aside - that bastion of decency and honesty, Grant Shapps, has allegedly been telling porkies again

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/grant-shapps-accused-of-editing-wikipedia-pages-of-tory-rivals

 

Is anyone else just sick of seeing links from The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Mail and The Mirror?

 

As soon as I see anything posted by any of them now I tend to ignore them as biased drivel. Guess that's why I only read The Independent now.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Do you want " millionaires " as a group of people to pay more into the pot or less? Do you judge fairness in terms of total tax take that we get from millionaires or the headline rate they pay?

 

The only 'fair' thing to do is make everyone pay the same tax rate. It's mad to think that someone on £30k per year will pay £3800 tax, yet someone on £300k per year will pay £121k in tax.

[aintforever]

Do you want " millionaires " as a group of people to pay more into the pot or less? Do you judge fairness in terms of total tax take that we get from millionaires or the headline rate they pay?

 

I wouldn't be bothered if I had to pay a bit more tax to keep vital services at a decent level.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I wouldn't be bothered if I had to pay a bit more tax to keep vital services at a decent level.

 

Maybe, but that wasn't the question .

 

Should fairness be judged on total tax take from millionaires or the headline rate they pay ?

[CB Fry]

The only 'fair' thing to do is make everyone pay the same tax rate. It's mad to think that someone on £30k per year will pay £3800 tax, yet someone on £300k per year will pay £121k in tax.

Why is tax rate the only relevant metric? In the entire spectrum of fairness, that's your go-to measure as the "only" fair thing to do?

 

Wouldn't the single most fair thing be if every single person had exactly the same income?

 

Just as dopey as your suggestion.

[Jonnyboy]

Anyone know how the mansion tax is going to work, how they'll value the houses etc? Are they going to value every house in the country?

 

Jeffs getting worried about his 2nd home. Why not sell it to some struggling first time buyers? It would be the fair thing to do.

[aintforever]

Maybe, but that wasn't the question .

 

Should fairness be judged on total tax take from millionaires or the headline rate they pay ?

 

Dunno, it is fair that they pay more as a percentage because they have more money than they need.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Jeffs getting worried about his 2nd home. Why not sell it to some struggling first time buyers? It would be the fair thing to do.

 

Because I'm going to give it to my daughter (in fact it's already in her name) so she has someone to live when she's older. Struggling first time buyers would probably be unable to afford it. I would sell it to you, but I assume as you can't get the pennies together to pay for a full membership that's probably not on.

[Whitey Grandad]

Dunno, it is fair that they pay more as a percentage because they have more money than they need.

 

But who are you (or we) to judge their need? The same applies to those on low incomes. Do they need to drink and smoke , for example? If somebody genuinely earns their money then how they spend it should be up to them.

Edited 21 April, 2015 by Whitey Grandad

[Lord Duckhunter]

Dunno, it is fair that they pay more as a percentage because they have more money than they need.

 

Ok , so you would rather the tax rate was higher , even if it brings in less revenue ? Rich ******s can afford it yeah? Why don't we make it 80% and punish them even more . Rooney could still live on the 20% of his wages we let him keep.

[solentstars]

Staggering level of economic illiteracy on display here. What do people think quantitative easing was? Answer - creating money out of thin air with the aim of stimulating growth and subsequent inflation to shrink the debt. I thought the Tories followers were supposed to be economics experts?

agree can,t believe how those who think we have not been pumping money shows how little they know but when you get schoolboy nonsense like lefty and socialist comments from a bygone age,it does not surprise me the level of economic debate.

[solentstars]

Your analogy is misleading insofar as it assumes that a car accelerating from 20 to 30 stops at the 30mph speed limit. But there is no evidence that household debt would not have continued to climb: a recessionary shock, not wise Tory policy forced households to deleverage and save. In the same way, household debt began to fall after the crisis under Brown; now it's rising again as the economy is fitfully recovering and all the signs are that debt ratios will leave anything presided over by Labour trailing in the dust.

 

The sooner you concede that household debt dynamics have ebbed and flowed with the economic cycle and the supply and demand for the housing (aka reflating the bubble) -rather than which party is in power, the better. Of course, measures such as Help to Buy that artificially inflate property prices by making debt financing more available havent helped;)

 

More generally, nobody disputes that heavy debt, whether household or government, weighs on economic performance; but there is no magic trip wire, some sudden discontinuity where debt suddenly becomes unsustainable, as you imply (see the near universal criticism of Rogoff and Reinhart). Indeed causation may travel in the other direction: low growth reduces tax receipts and therefore causes high debt ratios. Either way, it's not one way traffic.

 

History also shows that theres no stable relationship between public debt and GDP growth: much depends, for instance, on whether the economy is operating at capacity. In the wake of the crisis, private investors flocked to gilts and other sovereign bonds -despite low, even negative yields- for want of other safe assets. An ageing population and the need for pension funds to immunise liabilities only adds to to this demand. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/01/government-debt

 

You might not like the word austerity -perhaps it conjures up nasty images of Natalie Bennett having an episode of Tourette's. But the essential fact is that economies are still not out of the woods, as low interest rates indicate.

 

Try 'secular stagnation' if you don't like talk of austerity. When savings exceed investment and remain a constraint on demand and growth, my preference is for governments to borrow to finance the kinds of investment that will drive your third industrial revolution. Never mind that the UK can borrow money for less than half a percent for the long term in its own currency. Your alternative -to live within one's means- isn't really an alternative when the risk is of another stall.

good post

[aintforever]

Ok , so you would rather the tax rate was higher , even if it brings in less revenue?

 

No, things like the mansion tax and tax on second homes should raise more. There's no reason why more progressive tax rate would not raise more either.

 

Probably won't happen though, too many people nowadays are just selfish greedy c*nts, that's just the world we live in today.

[Batman]

No, things like the mansion tax and tax on second homes should raise more. There's no reason why more progressive tax rate would not raise more either.

 

Probably won't happen though, too many people nowadays are just selfish greedy c*nts, that's just the world we live in today.

greedy? you should give half your income (before bills) to the homeless, or the comic relief and such.

you do not need sky, mobile phone and holidays I suspect

[aintforever]

greedy? you should give half your income (before bills) to the homeless, or the comic relief and such.

you do not need sky, mobile phone and holidays I suspect

 

I do give to charity, it's just a **** in the ocean though. It's much more effective if the government do it through taxes.

[Batman]

I do give to charity, it's just a **** in the ocean though. It's much more effective if the government do it through taxes.

 

no, I mean stop being one of those 'greedy ****s' and give serious money away to people less fortunate.

to others, you are rich and selfish as you have way more than them....which is what you want others to do, right?

 

 

you being less greedy could change someone else's life....

[aintforever]

no, I mean stop being one of those 'greedy ****s' and give serious money away to people less fortunate.

to others, you are rich and selfish as you have way more than them....which is what you want others to do, right?

 

 

you being less greedy could change someone else's life....

I do give to charity, can't you read?

 

I also pay a **** load of tax, and have done my whole working life, without crying like a big baby like some on here.

[whelk]

The only 'fair' thing to do is make everyone pay the same tax rate. It's mad to think that someone on £30k per year will pay £3800 tax, yet someone on £300k per year will pay £121k in tax.

 

Dear me you struggle to understand so many basics. I do wonder who employs you. Does someone have to speak very slowly while you scribble things down?

[whelk]

greedy? you should give half your income (before bills) to the homeless, or the comic relief and such.

you do not need sky, mobile phone and holidays I suspect

 

Ahh the same ******** the press will beat anyone who cares about others less well off. . If he cares so much about others how come he wears shoes which cost money he could give away.

[whelk]

Is anyone else just sick of seeing links from The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Mail and The Mirror?

 

As soon as I see anything posted by any of them now I tend to ignore them as biased drivel. Guess that's why I only read The Independent now.

 

Independent is pretty much as left wing as the Guardian.

[Hockey_saint]

agree can,t believe how those who think we have not been pumping money shows how little they know but when you get schoolboy nonsense like lefty and socialist comments from a bygone age,it does not surprise me the level of economic debate.

 

Pretty sure I'm the one trying to point out that banks use quantitative easing all the blooming time and I think you'll find market forces is what led us to this situation...As well as the fact socialism and lefty nonsense is a hell of a lot younger than right-wing greed.

[hutch]

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, etc etc etc

 

If we were on the left we'd just give everyone fish everyday, until, of course, they ran out.

Teach a man to fish, and he'll sit in a boat all day with his mates drinking beer

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Dear me you struggle to understand so many basics. I do wonder who employs you. Does someone have to speak very slowly while you scribble things down?

 

Edit

Edited 21 April, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff
Taking this offline.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Independent is pretty much as left wing as the Guardian.

 

Edit.

Edited 21 April, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff
Taking this offline.

[trousers]

I do give to charity, it's just a **** in the ocean though. It's much more effective if the government do it through taxes.

I'm inclined to disagree. I think charities are much more efficient at distributing wealth than politicians.

[Lord Duckhunter]

No, things like the mansion tax and tax on second homes should raise more. There's no reason why more progressive tax rate would not raise more either.

 

Probably won't happen though, too many people nowadays are just selfish greedy c*nts, that's just the world we live in today.

 

A mansion tax will raise peanuts compared to the amount we spend & good luck with taxing second homes , a decent tax advisor will run rings round that one .

 

With all due respect you are still skirting around the issue . This progressive tax regime of yours , will rates be set to maximise revenue or do you just want a "fair "% out of rich ******s ?

 

You just seem to be throwing insults around about selfish people and rich people blah blah blah , but you can't seem to decide the goal of you tax system . It's a very simple question , do you think the top rate of tax should be set at the rate that brings in most revenue? If a top rate of 35% generated more revenue than 50% would you give millionaires this " tax break" or would you rather less money came in but you'll feel better about yourself , because you've stuck it to the toffs .

[Coxford_lou]

I'm inclined to disagree. I think charities are much more efficient at distributing wealth than politicians.

 

The role of charity is not to redistribute wealth. I'm not sure I can think of a charity that has this as its core purpose.

[Jonnyboy]

A mansion tax will raise peanuts compared to the amount we spend & good luck with taxing second homes , a decent tax advisor will run rings round that one .

 

With all due respect you are still skirting around the issue . This progressive tax regime of yours , will rates be set to maximise revenue or do you just want a "fair "% out of rich ******s ?

 

You just seem to be throwing insults around about selfish people and rich people blah blah blah , but you can't seem to decide the goal of you tax system . It's a very simple question , do you think the top rate of tax should be set at the rate that brings in most revenue? If a top rate of 35% generated more revenue than 50% would you give millionaires this " tax break" or would you rather less money came in but you'll feel better about yourself , because you've stuck it to the toffs .

 

People should pay whatever the government sets the rate at. If people are finding sneaky ways to avoid it like non doms or dodgy accounting this should be cracked down on harder than any benefit fraud.

[Orange]

Watch this from 4.30 and then come back and discuss the Mansion Tax. They haven't got a clue how it'll work, when it'll start, what the % rate will be or even name independent experts that advised them the money they'll get in.

 

It's clearly just a dog whistle to lefties.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqlog7_u3XI

 

Cheered me up watching that this morning. Look at his face squirm.

 

Thing is it's not like Andrew Neil was even asking unreasonable questions/laboring a point for too long, or anything- just pretty fundamental ones about a policy Labour have chosen to bang on and on about. As he said, how the f*ck can they give us such an exact figure on how much it will raise if they can't even answer such basic questions? It's embarrassing.

 

It's a tax on London and the South East. Why should an elderly couple who have lived in a two million pound house for years be forced to pay this tax because of a ridiculous house price boom they had no part in creating. But Labour don't care because the vast majority of people it will affect won't be Labour voters i'd imagine. And that's all they care about, getting into power.

[CB Saint]

A reduction as there will be less demand for houses over the 2 million bracket, or could attract that in a few years. That would be, generally, any 4 or 5 bed houses built in the capital. It would push down the demand onto cheaper housing, hence increasing their prices and creating a plateau of houses at a higher cost, pushing the poorest out.

 

Im not sure I agree.

 

99% of people who can afford a £2m house will be able to afford a tax that is imposed. I also don't beleive it will depress house sales for the same reason, it will be accepted as the cost of living in that house.

 

It it is a bit like when they increased the road fund licences to £400 for high co2 cars. It didn't stop people buying £100k Porsches, they just grizzled a bit and then got on with it.

 

that is not to say I think mansion tax is a good idea,

[pap]

You can't just make money out of thin air. If it were that simple, surely Gordon Brown would have done it to stay PM?

Printing more money has its consequences. The more you print, the bigger the consequences... and you end up in an even worse situation

 

Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit our debt! (this should be the new socialist mantra)

You don't understand the financial system then. Money is issued as debt. Every mortgage is created out of thin air, a promise to pay by the borrower.

 

The money doesn't come from some finite pile of cash. It's made real by that promise to pay, and enforced by the sort of c##ts that want to be bailiffs, and of course, the force of the state.

 

Which makes almost every comment on sound economic sense utterly redundant. You're recounting a fiction, and expecting people to believe it is real.

 

God forbid, but if a true catastrophe ever befelled our nation, you'd soon learn the value of money.

Edited 22 April, 2015 by pap

[pap]

How are the poorest 'clobbered'? They don't pay tax, or very little.

20% sales tax on anything deemed a luxury.

[pap]

The Land Registry, I imagine. It wouldn't be difficult and is the kind of policy for which Big Data is an ideal source.

Land registry doesn't know all, according to Kevin Cahill's "Who Owns Britain".

 

Would love a copy myself, but this summarisation will have to do for now.

 

http://www.countrylife.co.uk/articles/who-really-owns-britain-20219

[Joesaint]

Really do not want an SNP / Labour to run the country, the Scottish who don't believe the debt is a problem!! If we cut / reduce the debt we have more spending power for NHS, education etc. Worried they will win, and believe state of economy will really suffer with there spending, including the scots getting an improved deal!!!!!

 

Going to vote conservative, but worried. I think we need to spend more on defence.

[pap]

Really do not want an SNP / Labour to run the country, the Scottish who don't believe the debt is a problem!! If we cut / reduce the debt we have more spending power for NHS, education etc. Worried they will win, and believe state of economy will really suffer with there spending, including the scots getting an improved deal!!!!!

 

Going to vote conservative, but worried. I think we need to spend more on defence.

Tell us of your understanding of the financial system. Please. Do you have any idea how money is created?

[CB Fry]

Tell us of your understanding of the financial system. Please. Do you have any idea how money is created?

It's a simple case of fixing the credit card while the roof shines. Or something.

[trousers]

The role of charity is not to redistribute wealth. I'm not sure I can think of a charity that has this as its core purpose.

Whilst it may not be an overtly stated 'purpose' its what they end up doing, surely?

 

I give some of my wealth to Oxfam (for example) and they distribute it to where it needs to go.

 

OK, so I'm over simplifying the process perhaps, but that's because I'm a simple kinda guy.