LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
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.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?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
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.0
-
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
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?pblakeney said:
You have just highlighted why it won't happen.pinkbikini said:
So as an example, if it happened and alienated you, who would you subsequently vote for?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?
Question still stands - what’s the alternative vote?0 -
Well Brexit came around purely to unite the party and that backfired.pinkbikini said:
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?pblakeney said:
You have just highlighted why it won't happen.pinkbikini said:
So as an example, if it happened and alienated you, who would you subsequently vote for?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?
Question still stands - what’s the alternative vote?
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.0 -
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
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.0
-
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
I'll consider that if it happens.pinkbikini said:
So as an example, if it happened and alienated you, who would you subsequently vote for?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?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
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.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
0 -
Stamp duty is paid when you buy so your flip side only kicks in when you are moving back down the ladderjohn80 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.
0 -
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 hererick_chasey said:
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.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
I see that as cognitive dissonance so you might need to explain how that works to me.surrey_commuter said:
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 hererick_chasey said:
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.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
rjsterry said:
Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
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 tax0 -
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
- Dolan Tuono0 -
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?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.
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.0 -
52% from council tax, and 17% from retained business rates. This has changed significantly over the last 10 years.surrey_commuter said:rjsterry said:
Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
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 tax0 -
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
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?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.
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.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
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?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.
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.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.0 -
is that across the board or for Kingston?kingstongraham said:
52% from council tax, and 17% from retained business rates. This has changed significantly over the last 10 years.surrey_commuter said:rjsterry said:
Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
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 tax0 -
xenophobiarick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
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?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.
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.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.0 -
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
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?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.
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.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
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.0 -
Yes, it's just a different view. One called xenophobia as SC says.Dorset_Boy said:
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
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?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.
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.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
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.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Across England.surrey_commuter said:
is that across the board or for Kingston?kingstongraham said:
52% from council tax, and 17% from retained business rates. This has changed significantly over the last 10 years.surrey_commuter said:rjsterry said:
Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
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
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."0 -
I try very hard not to see it as a perjorative wordpangolin said:
Yes, it's just a different view. One called xenophobia as SC says.Dorset_Boy said:
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
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?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.
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.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
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.0 -
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.0
-
If xenophobia is the fear or hatred of something foreign, belief in nationhood doesn't equate to xenophobia by default, though obviously in some situations it may do.surrey_commuter said:
xenophobiarick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
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?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.
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.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
0
