OT: Lord Young - visonary genius or daft buffer?

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

"Capitalism kills competition", and he wanted the so-called mansion tax (aka the tax on a high proportion of houses in London and the nice houses outside it that would have created a hole in housing market between £999,999 and, oh, £2.5m? That would also have forced any (say) person with modest cashflow but a mortgage free capital asset to have to sell their home. Idiot) in the Coalition agreement.

That'll do for me. Line him up in front of the nearest wall.

I think your idea of London property values might be a bit skewed. Obviously, it depends what you call London, but the £1M+ properties are confined to relatively small areas, with large swathes of 'ordinary' housing in between. Most of the old dears living in run down, but very valuable Georgian terraces in Islington and the like have been bought out and shuffled off to a bungalow in the suburbs long ago.

EDIT: to back up the point http://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/browse/london/?q=London

ooermissus

rjsterry wrote:

I think your idea of London property values might be a bit skewed.

Yeah - even in Kensington and Chelsea the average house price is comfortably below a million - and I think the latest Lib Dem mansion tax was for 1% on the value of a house above £2m (as opposed to the earlier proposal of 0.5% of value above £1m). Either way, someone with a £3m house would have been shelling out £5k a year - steep but presumably within the budget of the vast majority of those owning £3m properties.

I am not saying it was a good tax, but it hardly counts as a cull of the Kulaks.

greg66_tri_v2.0

ooermissus wrote:

As for the capitalism kills competition line, he was merely echoing the views of that famous Scottish communist, Adam Smith.

No, he wasn't. In the trailed version of the speech, there was (rightly) no reference to Smith. In the delivered version, the reference to Smith was bolted on, presumably to try to give the soundbite some instat credibility. As far as I'm aware, that's not an accurate reflection of Smith's views.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

"Capitalism kills competition", and he wanted the so-called mansion tax (aka the tax on a high proportion of houses in London and the nice houses outside it that would have created a hole in housing market between £999,999 and, oh, £2.5m? That would also have forced any (say) person with modest cashflow but a mortgage free capital asset to have to sell their home. Idiot) in the Coalition agreement.

That'll do for me. Line him up in front of the nearest wall.

I think your idea of London property values might be a bit skewed. Obviously, it depends what you call London, but the £1M+ properties are confined to relatively small areas, with large swathes of 'ordinary' housing in between. Most of the old dears living in run down, but very valuable Georgian terraces in Islington and the like have been bought out and shuffled off to a bungalow in the suburbs long ago.

EDIT: to back up the point http://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/browse/london/?q=London

Houses on my road (terrace houses) are advertised at £750,000. Flats are advertised at around £350,000 - £375,000. (though this was earlier this year can't have fallen that much).

This is me so its not like I live in the plush end. I'm sure I can find more than one street and many many properties in my area (Wimbledon, Raynes Park, Malden, Balham Wandsworth and Clapham) that are listed in Greg's price range of £999,999 and £2.5mil.

Edit: This search brings up 561 for sale: Balham, Clapham, Fulham, Putney, Wimbledon, Wandsworth

But this is still the phoney war. The next two years are when we'll see the impact of the cuts. All we've got right now is the talk about the cuts.

That's what scares me. Anyone in the know knows that the dark times haven't even begun and those people/companies have clearly stopped spending.

In all honesty I think the banks will make or break the Coalition (and be the deciding factor of the next two years) more than anything else. If they don't start lending and get money circulating around the Country then we enter the double dip.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

I think your idea of London property values might be a bit skewed. Obviously, it depends what you call London, but the £1M+ properties are confined to relatively small areas, with large swathes of 'ordinary' housing in between. Most of the old dears living in run down, but very valuable Georgian terraces in Islington and the like have been bought out and shuffled off to a bungalow in the suburbs long ago.

EDIT: to back up the point http://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/browse/london/?q=London

Take inside the North & South Circular. And for these purposes, I count only "houses" (as I said) ie houses in single occupancy. Houses that have been divided into flats don't count, and obviously drag the average down.

Funnily enough, when we lived in Islington we lived next to a little old lady who'd lived in our street all her life, moving from one side to the other. She was sitting on a pot of gold, but had precious little cash flow.

Where we live now there are a couple of families from school who live with the aged grandparent who owns the house. Mortgages all long since paid off, but again precious little cashflow.

greg66_tri_v2.0

ooermissus wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think your idea of London property values might be a bit skewed.

Yeah - even in Kensington and Chelsea the average house price is comfortably below a million - and I think the latest Lib Dem mansion tax was for 1% on the value of a house above £2m (as opposed to the earlier proposal of 0.5% of value above £1m). Either way, someone with a £3m house would have been shelling out £5k a year - steep but presumably within the budget of the vast majority of those owning £3m properties.

I am not saying it was a good tax, but it hardly counts as a cull of the Kulaks.

For a £3m house, 1% of the surplus over £2m means £10k pa, not £5k. Which will punch a hole in the property market above £2m.

The mansion tax (and what sort of doublespeak is "mansion"? Oh yes, the sort that tells you that "house tax" would have the blood of voters running cold. Much better to present it as "them and us") was stepping stone to greater Fairness Through Monetary Expropriation, courtesy of Comrade Cable

It remains the Liberal Democrats' long term commitment to abolish the current unfair council tax and replace it with a tax based on people's ability to pay. One of the most offensive aspects of the current council tax system is that a multimillion pound mansion pays little more council tax than an ordinary family home. We recognise that an alternative system will take time to be developed and will have to be piloted by volunteer councils. Once a suitable tax system based on the ability to pay has been created the 'mansion tax' could be abolished.

So it would be a stepping stone to an additional form of income tax. A subject also dear to Comrade Cable's heart (from the same article):

It is right in principle to deal with the gross inequalities of wealth which have become even more extreme under Labour and much of which centres on property.

Translation: Soak the rich. They've earned it. We're having it.

Funny how fairness can be a one way street, no?

Buppy (banned)

notsoblue wrote:

Lord exhibits lack of empathy towards people on low incomes and/or don't own homes and implicates senior Conservatives as having a similar view?

No way!

Whatever anyone's opinion on his views are, I think its a good thing that they're out in the open. I'd rather the conservatives were more honest about their world view rather than by pushing ideas like compassionate conservatism or big society.

I don't see how much more open they could be than they are right now - they've just royally f*cked us all up the @rse...oh - except for the wealthy that is.

Buppy (banned)

Greg66 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think your idea of London property values might be a bit skewed.

Yeah - even in Kensington and Chelsea the average house price is comfortably below a million - and I think the latest Lib Dem mansion tax was for 1% on the value of a house above £2m (as opposed to the earlier proposal of 0.5% of value above £1m). Either way, someone with a £3m house would have been shelling out £5k a year - steep but presumably within the budget of the vast majority of those owning £3m properties.

I am not saying it was a good tax, but it hardly counts as a cull of the Kulaks.

For a £3m house, 1% of the surplus over £2m means £10k pa, not £5k. Which will punch a hole in the property market above £2m.

The mansion tax (and what sort of doublespeak is "mansion"? Oh yes, the sort that tells you that "house tax" would have the blood of voters running cold. Much better to present it as "them and us") was stepping stone to greater Fairness Through Monetary Expropriation, courtesy of Comrade Cable

It remains the Liberal Democrats' long term commitment to abolish the current unfair council tax and replace it with a tax based on people's ability to pay. One of the most offensive aspects of the current council tax system is that a multimillion pound mansion pays little more council tax than an ordinary family home. We recognise that an alternative system will take time to be developed and will have to be piloted by volunteer councils. Once a suitable tax system based on the ability to pay has been created the 'mansion tax' could be abolished.

So it would be a stepping stone to an additional form of income tax. A subject also dear to Comrade Cable's heart (from the same article):

It is right in principle to deal with the gross inequalities of wealth which have become even more extreme under Labour and much of which centres on property.

Translation: Soak the rich. They've earned it. We're having it.

Funny how fairness can be a one way street, no?

Yeah you're right - let's squeeze the lowest earners for enough money to bail out the bankers while they pay themselves shedloads in bonuses. Makes perfect sense. Or it does if you went to a rather good private school, eh, what what?

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

EDIT: to back up the point http://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/browse/london/?q=London

Always check your sources, my boy... That's headed "houses" but it should be headed "properties". It includes flats, divided houses, everything bought and sold.

Next problem though: fiscal drag. That wheeze that Brown, G, was so good at. Set the limit at £1m or £2m now, and it all seems so remote. Wait 10, 15 years, without adjusting the limit, and Boomchakka! You've snared most of the properties in London, and not just the houses. Slide the ol' percentage up a pip here and there, and you've got a regular goldmine.

Unless, by pure chance, your tax has distorted the housing marking so badly that you kill you golden goose. I suppose that would be quite funny. In a black way.

ooermissus

Greg66 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

As for the capitalism kills competition line, he was merely echoing the views of that famous Scottish communist, Adam Smith.

No, he wasn't. In the trailed version of the speech, there was (rightly) no reference to Smith. In the delivered version, the reference to Smith was bolted on, presumably to try to give the soundbite some instat credibility. As far as I'm aware, that's not an accurate reflection of Smith's views.

Here's the passage from Smith that I was thinking of:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

It's an often expressed liberal (used in the classical sense) view that capitalists are the greatest enemy of functioning free markets.

It was pretty tedious when, in the 80s, anyone the left disagreed with was a fascist. Now, sadly, communist/socialist is used in the same way, following a lead set by the Tea Party (for whom, of course, David Cameron is a pinko).

greg66_tri_v2.0

Buppy wrote:

Yeah you're right - let's squeeze the lowest earners for enough money to bail out the bankers while they pay themselves shedloads in bonuses. Makes perfect sense. Or it does if you went to a rather good private school, eh, what what?

Is that you, Porgy, me ol' mucker?

greg66_tri_v2.0

ooermissus wrote:

Here's the passage from Smith that I was thinking of:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Ahh. Well, if Comrade Cable had said "Cartels kill competition" he'd have been right, and right to attribute that to Adam Smith.

But treating "capitalism" and "cartels" as synonyms is something of a reach, wouldn't you say?

ooermissus

I think it goes a bit wider than cartels - more how incumbent economic interests use the state to entrench their advantages. Always striking how the main lobbies against a new trade deal are usual business interests - despite their theoretical commitment to free trade.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

Buppy wrote:

Yeah you're right - let's squeeze the lowest earners for enough money to bail out the bankers while they pay themselves shedloads in bonuses. Makes perfect sense. Or it does if you went to a rather good private school, eh, what what?

Is that you, Porgy, me ol' mucker?

No that's not Porgy.

Initialised

Getting sacked or reprimanded for speaking the truth isn't limited to politics.

sketchley

TailWindHome wrote:

I've never had it so good

Long may interest rates stay at their present level.

+1 - 2.5% mortgage at present. When I came off 5% deal 2 years ago and now on mortgage companies current standard veriable rate, but T&Cs say rate will never be more than 2% above base rate. Hence currently 2.5%.

However, I think I'm lucky as not many mortgage companies had this term and condition on thier standard veriable rates, mine have even dropped it for new and re-mortgags, and most people coming to end of deal are facing SVR of 5% plus. Additionally it's not as though I'm paying money saved in to a saving account cost of living has gone up at lot at the same time despite cost cutting.

I think Lord's comment where very miss guided, maybe for some mortgage customers it's accurate but not for most and even then doesn't take in to account other cost of living increases.

tailwindhome

Sketchley wrote:

I think Lord's comment where very miss guided, maybe for some mortgage customers it's accurate but not for most and even then doesn't take in to account other cost of living increases.

His comments also ignore the 100's of thousands of voters (including many members of his party) who are living off interest income from savings.

I'm better off than ever due to a combination of financial common sense and dumb luck, but I'm in a minority.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think your idea of London property values might be a bit skewed.

Yeah - even in Kensington and Chelsea the average house price is comfortably below a million - and I think the latest Lib Dem mansion tax was for 1% on the value of a house above £2m (as opposed to the earlier proposal of 0.5% of value above £1m). Either way, someone with a £3m house would have been shelling out £5k a year - steep but presumably within the budget of the vast majority of those owning £3m properties.

I am not saying it was a good tax, but it hardly counts as a cull of the Kulaks.

For a £3m house, 1% of the surplus over £2m means £10k pa, not £5k. Which will punch a hole in the property market above £2m.

The mansion tax (and what sort of doublespeak is "mansion"? Oh yes, the sort that tells you that "house tax" would have the blood of voters running cold. Much better to present it as "them and us") was stepping stone to greater Fairness Through Monetary Expropriation, courtesy of Comrade Cable

It remains the Liberal Democrats' long term commitment to abolish the current unfair council tax and replace it with a tax based on people's ability to pay. One of the most offensive aspects of the current council tax system is that a multimillion pound mansion pays little more council tax than an ordinary family home. We recognise that an alternative system will take time to be developed and will have to be piloted by volunteer councils. Once a suitable tax system based on the ability to pay has been created the 'mansion tax' could be abolished.

So it would be a stepping stone to an additional form of income tax. A subject also dear to Comrade Cable's heart (from the same article):

It is right in principle to deal with the gross inequalities of wealth which have become even more extreme under Labour and much of which centres on property.

Translation: Soak the rich. They've earned it. We're having it.

Funny how fairness can be a one way street, no?

If an increase in the value of your property is 'earned' then why shouldn't you pay tax on that earning? If on the other hand, you don't consider that increase in value to be earnings, then 'they' haven't 'earned' it, they've just been fortunate.

Over most of the last decade, the annual increase in value of even quite modest properties in many areas has been comparable with salaries. Now there are arguments for not taxing that accrual of capital, but it has always struck me as odd that capital gains on property weren't taxed, when people were making so much money out of it.

One other point: whilst the money might not be in their bank account, owners of the (few) properties worth, say, £3million do still have an asset worth £3million. If it's alright for others at the lower end of the scale to have to move house to find work and/or accommodation that they can afford, then why is it wrong for someone sitting on a 'pot of gold' to have to sell up and move to something more modest?

W1

rjsterry wrote:

If an increase in the value of your property is 'earned' then why shouldn't you pay tax on that earning? If on the other hand, you don't consider that increase in value to be earnings, then 'they' haven't 'earned' it, they've just been fortunate.

Over most of the last decade, the annual increase in value of even quite modest properties in many areas has been comparable with salaries. Now there are arguments for not taxing that accrual of capital, but it has always struck me as odd that capital gains on property weren't taxed, when people were making so much money out of it.

One other point: whilst the money might not be in their bank account, owners of the (few) properties worth, say, £3million do still have an asset worth £3million. If it's alright for others at the lower end of the scale to have to move house to find work and/or accommodation that they can afford, then why is it wrong for someone sitting on a 'pot of gold' to have to sell up and move to something more modest?

It's just a paper "value". It's not money in the bank (unlike the money that would be required to pay the tax). And who would set the value? A "value" can be substantially differenct depending on what factors are applied. Capital gains are taxed (except for Principle Private residence exemption, from which we all benefit).

Why should someone be taxed out of their home, just because it's worth more than an arbitrary figure?

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

If an increase in the value of your property is 'earned' then why shouldn't you pay tax on that earning? If on the other hand, you don't consider that increase in value to be earnings, then 'they' haven't 'earned' it, they've just been fortunate.

Over most of the last decade, the annual increase in value of even quite modest properties in many areas has been comparable with salaries. Now there are arguments for not taxing that accrual of capital, but it has always struck me as odd that capital gains on property weren't taxed, when people were making so much money out of it.

One other point: whilst the money might not be in their bank account, owners of the (few) properties worth, say, £3million do still have an asset worth £3million. If it's alright for others at the lower end of the scale to have to move house to find work and/or accommodation that they can afford, then why is it wrong for someone sitting on a 'pot of gold' to have to sell up and move to something more modest?

It's just a paper "value". It's not money in the bank (unlike the money that would be required to pay the tax). And who would set the value? A "value" can be substantially differenct depending on what factors are applied. Capital gains are taxed (except for Principle Private residence exemption, from which we all benefit).

Why should someone be taxed out of their home, just because it's worth more than an arbitrary figure?

Well, to those with a bit of financial nous, it was very much money in the bank: a bit of clever remortgaging and you could cream off the capital gain or if you. The whole 'mansion' side of it was a bit daft, but taxing the increase in value of property isn't that strange an idea: we already pay stamp duty, and even the arbitrary figures within that system don't seem to have that much of an effect (despite lots of people bleating about it when it was changed).

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

If an increase in the value of your property is 'earned' then why shouldn't you pay tax on that earning? If on the other hand, you don't consider that increase in value to be earnings, then 'they' haven't 'earned' it, they've just been fortunate.

Over most of the last decade, the annual increase in value of even quite modest properties in many areas has been comparable with salaries. Now there are arguments for not taxing that accrual of capital, but it has always struck me as odd that capital gains on property weren't taxed, when people were making so much money out of it.

One other point: whilst the money might not be in their bank account, owners of the (few) properties worth, say, £3million do still have an asset worth £3million. If it's alright for others at the lower end of the scale to have to move house to find work and/or accommodation that they can afford, then why is it wrong for someone sitting on a 'pot of gold' to have to sell up and move to something more modest?

It's just a paper "value". It's not money in the bank (unlike the money that would be required to pay the tax). And who would set the value? A "value" can be substantially differenct depending on what factors are applied. Capital gains are taxed (except for Principle Private residence exemption, from which we all benefit).

Why should someone be taxed out of their home, just because it's worth more than an arbitrary figure?

Well, to those with a bit of financial nous, it was very much money in the bank: a bit of clever remortgaging and you could cream off the capital gain or if you. The whole 'mansion' side of it was a bit daft, but taxing the increase in value of property isn't that strange an idea: we already pay stamp duty, and even the arbitrary figures within that system don't seem to have that much of an effect (despite lots of people bleating about it when it was changed).

Money in the bak does not equal re-mortgaging chap - it's still not money in the bank (in reality) if it has to be repaid. Unlike (say) income or realised gains. Stamp duty is a one-off tax and is only paid when you actually have the money to do so. It's not the same as taxing someone who is simply living in their home which they may have bought for pennies years ago and have no intention of selling or leveraging. Nor should they have to, in my opinion.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

One other point: whilst the money might not be in their bank account, owners of the (few) properties worth, say, £3million do still have an asset worth £3million. If it's alright for others at the lower end of the scale to have to move house to find work and/or accommodation that they can afford, then why is it wrong for someone sitting on a 'pot of gold' to have to sell up and move to something more modest?

Ah yes, I think you might be onto something... Tax people out of their homes.

But you'll never change views with a simple change of scenery. You need to change the way people *think*. Re-educate them, if you will.

Well, they'll be needing to live somewhere, so how about sending them down to the countryside. In a movement, of sorts.

Wait... hasn't that been tried?

rjsterry

I didn't actually say that taxing people out of their homes was a good idea, I was just making the point that it is just as bad an idea as forcing people out of their homes by other economic means.

Interestingly, my experience of the low income person living in a high value property is after that person has sold up (either because they've decided that a five-bedroom draughty, uninsulated Victorian house is too expensive to heat for one pensioner, or some similar reason, or they've left feet first as it were. The houses are normally in a pretty terrible state, with the occupants living in the one or two rooms that they can reach unaided, and the rest of the house decaying around them. It's quite possible to spend a couple of hundred thousand just to get the house up to a decent habitable standard.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

I didn't actually say that taxing people out of their homes was a good idea, I was just making the point that it is just as bad an idea as forcing people out of their homes by other economic means.

Interestingly, my experience of the low income person living in a high value property is after that person has sold up (either because they've decided that a five-bedroom draughty, uninsulated Victorian house is too expensive to heat for one pensioner, or some similar reason, or they've left feet first as it were. The houses are normally in a pretty terrible state, with the occupants living in the one or two rooms that they can reach unaided, and the rest of the house decaying around them. It's quite possible to spend a couple of hundred thousand just to get the house up to a decent habitable standard.

And that's a problem because....? it's their house and their choice.

There is a huge difference between losing your job and moving to find work than the state imposing a tax which you can't afford to pay and means you are forced to move.

rjsterry

Not sure it's the pensioner's choice not to be able to heat and maintain/repair their home. I'd say that is a problem.

To your second point: there's a difference, but I'm not sure it's that huge.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Not sure it's the pensioner's choice not to be able to heat and maintain/repair their home. I'd say that is a problem.

To your second point: there's a difference, but I'm not sure it's that huge.

Well surely they can always sell?

On the second point we'll agree to disagree. I can chose to move to find work; or I can change job, or lengthen my commute. To be forced to move due to the state thinking it's not fair that I live in a house I've been in for decades just because it's increased in value (through no action of me) is not about choice.

neiltb

look at the 'capitalism kills competition' another way greg. Do you think Wal-mart is interested in competition? Our company sells to them, at a price that cannot be matched or beaten to any other retailer. they compete on their grounds. Over here they are as capitalist as you could like.

Communism is just monopolies poorer brother.