Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1969799101102117

Posts

  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,188

    Stevo_666 said:

    Politically it would also alienate large swathes of the country where property prices are generally high and where there are lots of Tory constituencies.

    Also if, as elbowloh says above, it doesn't change the overall revenues but changes how the cost is split, not sure what the point is?

    So as an example, if it happened and alienated you, who would you subsequently vote for?
    You have just highlighted why it won't happen.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 18,947



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 18,947
    Stevo_666 said:

    Politically it would also alienate large swathes of the country where property prices are generally high and where there are lots of Tory constituencies.

    Also if, as elbowloh says above, it doesn't change the overall revenues but changes how the cost is split, not sure what the point is?

    The rate you pay is set pretty arbitrarily now. Imagine if income tax was worked in the same way and all those earning over £50K paid £10K tax regardless of whether they earned £51K or £250K.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,861
    I don't mean to be funny lads but they could not get the bedroom tax through. What chance Have they got taxing the middle classes and above out their existing homes.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 12,680
    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
  • pinkbikinipinkbikini Posts: 599
    pblakeney said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Politically it would also alienate large swathes of the country where property prices are generally high and where there are lots of Tory constituencies.

    Also if, as elbowloh says above, it doesn't change the overall revenues but changes how the cost is split, not sure what the point is?

    So as an example, if it happened and alienated you, who would you subsequently vote for?
    You have just highlighted why it won't happen.
    Highly unlikely I know. But - 80 seat majority, blah blah. Would be popular with aspirational Tory voters (jealousy principle). Perhaps they could be push this through and still win despite reduced party donations. Winning is everything, after all, right?

    Question still stands - what’s the alternative vote?
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,188

    pblakeney said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Politically it would also alienate large swathes of the country where property prices are generally high and where there are lots of Tory constituencies.

    Also if, as elbowloh says above, it doesn't change the overall revenues but changes how the cost is split, not sure what the point is?

    So as an example, if it happened and alienated you, who would you subsequently vote for?
    You have just highlighted why it won't happen.
    Highly unlikely I know. But - 80 seat majority, blah blah. Would be popular with aspirational Tory voters (jealousy principle). Perhaps they could be push this through and still win despite reduced party donations. Winning is everything, after all, right?

    Question still stands - what’s the alternative vote?
    Well Brexit came around purely to unite the party and that backfired.
    Want round two? Won't happen and the voters are way down the line.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,861

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,861
    I guess on the flip side an equivalent yearly charge would be unaffordable for a lot of people out of their wages versus out of the sale of an asset on a big loan.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,667 Lives Here
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.
    Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,861

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.
    Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?
    Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 44,010

    Stevo_666 said:

    Politically it would also alienate large swathes of the country where property prices are generally high and where there are lots of Tory constituencies.

    Also if, as elbowloh says above, it doesn't change the overall revenues but changes how the cost is split, not sure what the point is?

    So as an example, if it happened and alienated you, who would you subsequently vote for?
    I'll consider that if it happens.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 18,947

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,667 Lives Here
    john80 said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.
    Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?
    Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.
    Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.

  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 12,680
    john80 said:

    I guess on the flip side an equivalent yearly charge would be unaffordable for a lot of people out of their wages versus out of the sale of an asset on a big loan.

    Stamp duty is paid when you buy so your flip side only kicks in when you are moving back down the ladder
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 12,680

    john80 said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.
    Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?
    Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.
    Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.

    You can think that the ridiculous cost of moving house has a detrimental effect on the mobility of labour within the UK and want to stop JF coming here
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,667 Lives Here

    john80 said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.
    Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?
    Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.
    Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.

    You can think that the ridiculous cost of moving house has a detrimental effect on the mobility of labour within the UK and want to stop JF coming here
    I see that as cognitive dissonance so you might need to explain how that works to me.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 12,680
    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?

    The local bit is all bollocks as the vast majority of funds come from central grants so I would not bother with another tax on earnings.

    I would put stamp duty back to a flat rate of 1% on all transactions and then extract the rest from upping council tax
  • pangolinpangolin Posts: 3,128
    edited 19 January
    You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
    Genesis Croix de Fer
    Cube Attain
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,667 Lives Here
    pangolin said:

    You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.

    I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?

    Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 13,846

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?

    The local bit is all bollocks as the vast majority of funds come from central grants so I would not bother with another tax on earnings.

    I would put stamp duty back to a flat rate of 1% on all transactions and then extract the rest from upping council tax
    52% from council tax, and 17% from retained business rates. This has changed significantly over the last 10 years.
  • pangolinpangolin Posts: 3,128

    pangolin said:

    You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.

    I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?

    Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
    Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.
    Genesis Croix de Fer
    Cube Attain
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,667 Lives Here
    edited 19 January
    pangolin said:

    pangolin said:

    You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.

    I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?

    Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
    Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.
    I'm not incredulous.

    I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 12,680

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?

    The local bit is all bollocks as the vast majority of funds come from central grants so I would not bother with another tax on earnings.

    I would put stamp duty back to a flat rate of 1% on all transactions and then extract the rest from upping council tax
    52% from council tax, and 17% from retained business rates. This has changed significantly over the last 10 years.
    is that across the board or for Kingston?
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 12,680

    pangolin said:

    pangolin said:

    You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.

    I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?

    Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
    Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.
    I'm not incredulous.

    I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
    xenophobia
  • Dorset_BoyDorset_Boy Posts: 3,374

    pangolin said:

    pangolin said:

    You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.

    I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?

    Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
    Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.
    I'm not incredulous.

    I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
    I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.
    As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
    Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
    It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
  • pangolinpangolin Posts: 3,128

    pangolin said:

    pangolin said:

    You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.

    I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?

    Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
    Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.
    I'm not incredulous.

    I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
    I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.
    As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
    Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
    It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
    Yes, it's just a different view. One called xenophobia as SC says.
    Genesis Croix de Fer
    Cube Attain
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 13,846

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:



    Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
    My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.

    It would be less market distorting.
    Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?
    Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.

    There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
    Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?

    The local bit is all bollocks as the vast majority of funds come from central grants so I would not bother with another tax on earnings.

    I would put stamp duty back to a flat rate of 1% on all transactions and then extract the rest from upping council tax
    52% from council tax, and 17% from retained business rates. This has changed significantly over the last 10 years.
    is that across the board or for Kingston?
    Across England.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/local-government-funding-england

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/housing-communities-and-local-government-committee/local-government-finance-and-the-2019-spending-review/written/100703.html

    From the NAO - "Government funding for local authorities has fallen by an estimated 49.1% in real terms from 2010-11 to 2017-18."
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 12,680
    pangolin said:

    pangolin said:

    pangolin said:

    You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.

    I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?

    Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
    Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.
    I'm not incredulous.

    I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
    I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.
    As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
    Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
    It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
    Yes, it's just a different view. One called xenophobia as SC says.
    I try very hard not to see it as a perjorative word
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 11,838
    Even if, like me, you would like the freedom to move anywhere in the world, it's hard to imagine how this would fit with other people's views which ultimately it has to. Furthermore, it's also easy to imagine that it might lead to mass population change. On that basis, most people accept some form of control on movement.
Sign In or Register to comment.