In article , IMM
writes

It isn't supportable to say that the UK has a singularly bad problem
with respect to litter and similar social maladies.

It is. The place is filthy, especially after the Wicked Witch came to power.


And after 7 years in Power, Phoney has yet to do anything about it,
apart from WASTE £10 billion on the Kings Cross redevelopment - so that
the Kinnocks (un-electable in this country remember) can get to their
offices in Sprouts by the cheapest route, while being allowed to claim
the cost of going the whole way by taxi and first class scheduled air
routes.
--
Andrew

In article , Andy Hall
writes
There are parts of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Frankfurt, Munich,
cities of the Ruhrgebiet .... which have serious litter problems,
among others.

Indeed, on the TV news this week the Dutch government were reported to
be sending thousands of illegal 'asylum' seekers home, and demolishing
the seedy, infested blocks of 'soshal housing' with the intention of
replacing same with up-market housing. The pictures broadcast did not
give me the impression that here was an example if IMM's vision of a
clean, well-ordered Euro country. It looked more like down town (= run
down) Lahore or Cairo.
--
Andrew

In article , IMM
writes
But only in one place in each, and it is contained.


As it is here, St. Pauls Bristol, Moss Side Manchester, Brixton,
Toxteth.
--
Andrew

In article , IMM
writes
One of the worst ones.

Which is most of London


That's socialism for you. Now if they had only privatised it a few years
ago ....

IMM who do you think is responsible for the filthy state of LU ?. Is it
all those 'Middle Englanders' who chuck their Daily Mails and FT's on
the floor ?

1. Phoneys bedrock supporters travelling from their socialist-provided
ghettos to their drug dealing patches (having jumped the barriers of
course).
2. The tidal army of tourists and other non-resident people, leaving
litter, carving graffiti on the glass, spitting chewing gum.
3. The fact that Underground is 'run' and 'cleaned/maintained' by
residents of nearby relevant LU termini (now I wonder who they could
be).

--
Andrew

In article , IMM
writes

Wishful thinking? Remember the Labour governments of the 70's?

Fabulous!
Along with Austin Maxis, Morris Marinas, and Austin Allegros presumably.
--
Andrew

In article , Huge
writes
Tony Bryer writes:

one cannot but help feel that at some point we will have to pay the
price. And of course all those who borrowed to the hilt rather than
taking advantage of low interest rates to clear their debts will be
demanding that the government does something

And the Government should do then what it should do now.

Nothing.


Not true. The main driving force now is a feature that wasn't around
during earlier housing booms, namely the buy-to-let mortgage for which
you do not need to proof of income. I imagine one area where flash
gordon will look is the practise where someone has 20 buy-to-let
properties but actually lives in one, paying a peppercorn rent but able
to claim generous tax benefits, and then able to pocket £40,000 tax free
before CGT kicks in.
As soon as the US elections are over this November, expect the USD to
recover fairly quickly as US interest rates start their upward journey.

--
Andrew

In article , Huge
writes

Forgive me if I fail to have any sympathy whatsoever for people who get
themselves into unsustainable debt through greed.


New Labour do - they have made it much easier to go bankrupt and wipe
the slate clean (only 12 months now) - leaving everyone else to pick up
their share of the 'debt'.
--
Andrew

In article , IMM
writes
What ********. 80& of consumer debt is mortgages. Shock! Horror!


Caused by new labours inability to control the economy and thus the
housing market
--
Andrew

In article , Tony Bryer
writes
But it would be easier just to charge everyone 5% g

Including the seller. They could help first time buyers 'at a stroke'
by transferring stamp duty from the buyer to the vendor. This would have
the added advantage of getting some money back from non-dom property
owners who are exempt from CGT even if the latter was extended to the
main residence. It would also claw back more from people selling their
overpriced london piles and moving out the 'country'.
--
Andrew

In message , Andrew
writes
In article , IMM
writes

Wishful thinking? Remember the Labour governments of the 70's?

Fabulous!
Along with Austin Maxis, Morris Marinas, and Austin Allegros presumably.

You spelt Allaggro incorrectly there


--
geoff

"IMM" wrote in message
...
As for Europe, I'd rate Charles de Gaulle tops, though many UK
flights are now in that dreadful new glass bit. It's clean but terrible
glare on a bright sunlit day.

I used it regularly and it was 3 up on Heathrow.

My garden shed is up on Heathrow. Even Stanstead is up on Heathrow. Only
Gatwick and the whole of the US air system us behind it !

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:57:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

We are well overdue. The French revolution was a 180 degree change and that
has worked exceptionally well.

Absolutely! I do tend to the idea that really massive change only
comes about after a revolution or defeat (France and Germany
respectively). But what we are doing in Britain is continually
changing things because we don't know how, or haven't the will, to
make what we already have work properly. The latest crazy idea from
the chief crazies in Whitehall and Westminster is to scrap A-levels
and GCSEs and replace them with "diplomas". Any problems with A-levels
are therefore deemed unfixable, despite the fact that we have had the
A-level system in the UK for years, and the only way to fix them is,
apparently, to scrap them. Think of the enormous cost the new diplomas
will incur! Armies of extra public servants will be recruited to shift
mountains for new forms, the new plans will take years to bed down and
become as widely understood in industry as A-levels are today, and
then, if and when, the diplomas start to become effective, some future
government will decide it's time for a change again because problems
have been found and deemed to be unfixable.

The only way to stop this kind of ridiculous dogma is to cut off its
air supply.

MM

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:58:11 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't supportable to say that the UK has a singularly bad problem
with respect to litter and similar social maladies.

Yes, it is! The UK is unique certainly within Europe. I reckon we have
the highest number of records in the lowest categories of achievement.

MM

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:17:45 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

....I imagine one area where flash
gordon will look is the practise where someone has 20 buy-to-let
properties but actually lives in one, paying a peppercorn rent but able
to claim generous tax benefits, and then able to pocket £40,000 tax free
before CGT kicks in.

Er, what crime has been committed in this practice?

MM

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:32:00 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

In article , Tony Bryer
writes
But it would be easier just to charge everyone 5% g

Including the seller. They could help first time buyers 'at a stroke'
by transferring stamp duty from the buyer to the vendor. This would have
the added advantage of getting some money back from non-dom property
owners who are exempt from CGT even if the latter was extended to the
main residence. It would also claw back more from people selling their
overpriced london piles and moving out the 'country'.

Any nonsense like this, and the vendors (who hold all the cards 'cos
they are the ones with the property!) will simply push the prices up
further. If I know I'm going to have to pay 5% to somebody to buy my
property, then I'm dreadfully sorry and all that, but the price is now
5% higher, okay? And because there is a dearth of new housing yet the
demand is so stong (January increase: 2.2%), I'll have you by the
short and curlies more firmly than ever! Yippee! Thank God for bricks
and mortar!

MM

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:05:51 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:57:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

We are well overdue. The French revolution was a 180 degree change and that
has worked exceptionally well.

Absolutely! I do tend to the idea that really massive change only
comes about after a revolution or defeat (France and Germany
respectively). But what we are doing in Britain is continually
changing things because we don't know how, or haven't the will, to
make what we already have work properly. The latest crazy idea from
the chief crazies in Whitehall and Westminster is to scrap A-levels
and GCSEs and replace them with "diplomas". Any problems with A-levels
are therefore deemed unfixable, despite the fact that we have had the
A-level system in the UK for years, and the only way to fix them is,
apparently, to scrap them. Think of the enormous cost the new diplomas
will incur! Armies of extra public servants will be recruited to shift
mountains for new forms, the new plans will take years to bed down and
become as widely understood in industry as A-levels are today, and
then, if and when, the diplomas start to become effective, some future
government will decide it's time for a change again because problems
have been found and deemed to be unfixable.

The only way to stop this kind of ridiculous dogma is to cut off its
air supply.

MM

I suspect that the reality is that this is a way to obfuscate the
steadily declining standards in education.

THe goal posts of the existing system have been moved to the point
that they are off the pitch and in the crowd; therefore the time has
come to move to a different pitch and play a different game.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:09:48 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:58:11 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't supportable to say that the UK has a singularly bad problem
with respect to litter and similar social maladies.

Yes, it is! The UK is unique certainly within Europe. I reckon we have
the highest number of records in the lowest categories of achievement.

MM


That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| But it would be easier just to charge everyone 5% g
| Including the seller. They could help first time buyers 'at
| a stroke' by transferring stamp duty from the buyer to the
| vendor.
| Any nonsense like this, and the vendors (who hold all the cards
| 'cos they are the ones with the property!) will simply push the
| prices up further. If I know I'm going to have to pay 5% to
| somebody to buy my property, then I'm dreadfully sorry and
| all that, but the price is now 5% higher, okay? And because
| there is a dearth of new housing yet the demand is so stong
| (January increase: 2.2%), I'll have you by the short and curlies
| more firmly than ever! Yippee! Thank God for bricks and mortar!

What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from CGT
and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value per annum
equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain in value above
tax-free gain taxed at 80%.

So if bank base rate is 10% a property bought for 50k would have tax-free
gain to 80k in 5 years. If it was put on the market at 100k the vendor would
get 84k after the 80% marginal tax on 100k minus 80k.

The market would not stand that house being sold for 180k with 80k going in
tax for the vendor to receive 100k current value. There would be little
incentive for vendors to inflate prices because a large part of the gain
would go in tax. Moreover, the concept of borrowing huge amounts of money to
buy a house anticipating high gains in value would fail, so people would
incur less debt burden, less capital would be tied up in the inflexible and
unproductive property market and people could return to the concept of
*saving before* buying a house rather than payng back afterwards. Other
forms of investment would look more attractive against property, releasing
capital for business investment, and the gap in property values between
different parts of the country would be brought closer to previous values.
There would also be some compensation to periods of high interest rates
because they would result in a higher tax allowance in the longer term.

Owain

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:28:59 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| But it would be easier just to charge everyone 5% g
| Including the seller. They could help first time buyers 'at
| a stroke' by transferring stamp duty from the buyer to the
| vendor.
| Any nonsense like this, and the vendors (who hold all the cards
| 'cos they are the ones with the property!) will simply push the
| prices up further. If I know I'm going to have to pay 5% to
| somebody to buy my property, then I'm dreadfully sorry and
| all that, but the price is now 5% higher, okay? And because
| there is a dearth of new housing yet the demand is so stong
| (January increase: 2.2%), I'll have you by the short and curlies
| more firmly than ever! Yippee! Thank God for bricks and mortar!

What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from CGT
and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value per annum
equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain in value above
tax-free gain taxed at 80%.

Hmm.. Inheritance tax is iniquitous enough as it is without removing
exemptions. The notion of 80% tax on anything is not likely to be
popularly received.



So if bank base rate is 10% a property bought for 50k would have tax-free
gain to 80k in 5 years. If it was put on the market at 100k the vendor would
get 84k after the 80% marginal tax on 100k minus 80k.

The market would not stand that house being sold for 180k with 80k going in
tax for the vendor to receive 100k current value. There would be little
incentive for vendors to inflate prices because a large part of the gain
would go in tax. Moreover, the concept of borrowing huge amounts of money to
buy a house anticipating high gains in value would fail, so people would
incur less debt burden, less capital would be tied up in the inflexible and
unproductive property market and people could return to the concept of
*saving before* buying a house rather than payng back afterwards.

Interesting idea, but this leaves me wondering how do we get there
from here? This would have to be tapered in some way, and how would
the issue of loss of money be handled?


Other
forms of investment would look more attractive against property, releasing
capital for business investment, and the gap in property values between
different parts of the country would be brought closer to previous values.
There would also be some compensation to periods of high interest rates
because they would result in a higher tax allowance in the longer term.

Owain

Business investment is a useful thing, although there is the
perception that it is high risk and that property is "safe" in the
long term. Not entirely true, but it is what most people believe.
That in itself influences market behaviour,.

I am not sure what benefit there is in reducing the gap in property
values other than to promote mobility, but there are other ways to do
that.







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote
| "Owain" wrote:
| What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from
| CGT and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value
| per annum equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain
| in value above tax-free gain taxed at 80%.
| Hmm.. Inheritance tax is iniquitous enough as it is without removing
| exemptions.

I think much of the iniquity of inheritance tax is because of the
exemptions. Actually, my "bright idea" (ill-considered off-the-cuff
disjointed thinking :-) could replace much of IHT because for many the
rampantly-inflated house value is the major asset bequeathed.

| The notion of 80% tax on anything is not likely to be
| popularly received.

Perhaps it could be justified in some way on environmental (like fuel) or
health (like tobacco and alcohol) grounds. The tax raised could be earmarked
for providing affordable rented and community self-build projects in those
same areas where property prices have risen the most.

As for tapering it in, retrospective application of legislation is usually a
poor proposal, so a 'back date' could be set ie only growth in value after
that date was taxable, chosen to be approximately equivalent to the current
tax burden but rising year on year (and without the government having to
increase any rate or threshold).

Anyway, it's a marginal rate, in the example I gave it equals a tax of 32%
on the overall growth or 16% on the curent market value, which compares
fairly with general income tax rates or even 17.5% VAT. It would apply
mostly to those who have a grossly-inflated house value through artificial
market conditions, although some fixer-uppers could also get hit. I'd help
them by allowing full VAT relief on restoration to habitatable condition of
derelict property without having to do the existing demolish/rebuild cycle.

Owain

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:57:49 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

We are well overdue. The French revolution was a 180 degree change and
that
has worked exceptionally well.

Absolutely! I do tend to the idea that really massive change only
comes about after a revolution or defeat (France and Germany
respectively). But what we are doing in Britain is continually
changing things because we don't know how, or haven't the will, to
make what we already have work properly. The latest crazy idea from
the chief crazies in Whitehall and Westminster is to scrap A-levels
and GCSEs and replace them with "diplomas". Any problems with A-levels
are therefore deemed unfixable, despite the fact that we have had the
A-level system in the UK for years, and the only way to fix them is,
apparently, to scrap them.

The French baccalaureate is superior. We should go that way, and what I see
is that the new proposal is not far off.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes
But only in one place in each, and it is contained.


As it is here, St. Pauls Bristol, Moss Side Manchester, Brixton,
Toxteth.

One place in each city/conorbation? Please.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes
One of the worst ones.

Which is most of London


That's socialism for you. Now if they had only privatised it a few years
ago ....

IMM who do you think is responsible for the filthy state of LU ?. Is it
all those 'Middle Englanders' who chuck their Daily Mails and FT's on
the floor ?

Scum, the lot of them.

snip drivel

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes

Wishful thinking? Remember the Labour governments of the 70's?

Fabulous!

Along with Austin Maxis

1969

, Morris Marinas,

1971

and Austin Allegros presumably.

1973

Two of them in Tory government. Did Wilson design them?

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes
What ********. 80& of consumer debt is mortgages. Shock! Horror!


Caused by new labours inability to control the economy and thus the
housing market

A sad case of brainwashing here. The economy is the best it has been in
living memory.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| But it would be easier just to charge everyone 5% g
| Including the seller. They could help first time buyers 'at
| a stroke' by transferring stamp duty from the buyer to the
| vendor.
| Any nonsense like this, and the vendors (who hold all the cards
| 'cos they are the ones with the property!) will simply push the
| prices up further. If I know I'm going to have to pay 5% to
| somebody to buy my property, then I'm dreadfully sorry and
| all that, but the price is now 5% higher, okay? And because
| there is a dearth of new housing yet the demand is so stong
| (January increase: 2.2%), I'll have you by the short and curlies
| more firmly than ever! Yippee! Thank God for bricks and mortar!

What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from CGT
and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value per annum
equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain in value above
tax-free gain taxed at 80%.

So if bank base rate is 10% a property bought for 50k would have tax-free
gain to 80k in 5 years. If it was put on the market at 100k the vendor
would
get 84k after the 80% marginal tax on 100k minus 80k.

The market would not stand that house being sold for 180k with 80k going
in
tax for the vendor to receive 100k current value. There would be little
incentive for vendors to inflate prices because a large part of the gain
would go in tax. Moreover, the concept of borrowing huge amounts of money
to
buy a house anticipating high gains in value would fail, so people would
incur less debt burden, less capital would be tied up in the inflexible
and
unproductive property market and people could return to the concept of
*saving before* buying a house rather than payng back afterwards. Other
forms of investment would look more attractive against property, releasing
capital for business investment, and the gap in property values between
different parts of the country would be brought closer to previous values.
There would also be some compensation to periods of high interest rates
because they would result in a higher tax allowance in the longer term.

Interesting, but the best system is Land Value Tax and relaxing the
draconian planning system.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:12:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Would you make that comment regarding *any* section of society or
just
one particular one that you happen not to care for?

Of course I would. We need a meritocracy, not a medieval set up.

Hmmm..... The question then becomes the definition of what "merit"
is. That will be different for different people.

It certainly is not the Eton/Harrow/Oxbridge/Guards crap that we have.

So what would you say that it is?


We are well overdue. The French revolution was a 180 degree change
and
that
has worked exceptionally well.

Most French people that I know are not hugely enamoured by what has
become a huge centralised bureaucracy.

All of them since 1789?

At least one would know the aristocrats were. But the faceless
bureaucrats? Are they any more accountable?

I was there when they celebrated the 200th
anniversary. All were delighted with the results.

Of having a day off and excuse for a party?

At the way the country is run and what they have.

They are eating cake now at least... :-)

And they do.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes
Why would I? I am not exactly poor.

After

snip brainwashed drivel

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:42:53 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote
| "Owain" wrote:
| What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from
| CGT and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value
| per annum equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain
| in value above tax-free gain taxed at 80%.
| Hmm.. Inheritance tax is iniquitous enough as it is without removing
| exemptions.

I think much of the iniquity of inheritance tax is because of the
exemptions.

You might think a little differently if you had to act as executor of
a complex estate during bereavement.

It is not an appropriate time to be dealing with complicated tax
matters, not to mention the invasion of privacy by officaldom.

Actually, my "bright idea" (ill-considered off-the-cuff
disjointed thinking :-) could replace much of IHT because for many the
rampantly-inflated house value is the major asset bequeathed.

IHT should be abolished. The deceased has already paid income tax,
VAT and possibly CGT and frequently has little left to bequeath, even
less if long term care is required in late life.

For many of the elderly, this is a source of considerable distress
because they would like to be to hand something to their children or
grandchildren. For 40% of it to be ripped off by the government is
not appropriate.


| The notion of 80% tax on anything is not likely to be
| popularly received.

Perhaps it could be justified in some way on environmental (like fuel) or
health (like tobacco and alcohol) grounds. The tax raised could be earmarked
for providing affordable rented and community self-build projects in those
same areas where property prices have risen the most.

Earmarking of tax never really happens though.


As for tapering it in, retrospective application of legislation is usually a
poor proposal, so a 'back date' could be set ie only growth in value after
that date was taxable, chosen to be approximately equivalent to the current
tax burden but rising year on year (and without the government having to
increase any rate or threshold).

I meant a forward looking tapering.



Anyway, it's a marginal rate, in the example I gave it equals a tax of 32%
on the overall growth or 16% on the curent market value, which compares
fairly with general income tax rates or even 17.5% VAT. It would apply
mostly to those who have a grossly-inflated house value through artificial
market conditions, although some fixer-uppers could also get hit.

Well are the market conditions artificial? Prices are only based on
what the market will stand and what people can afford. That will
change automatically, as it always does when interest rates begin to
rise. Those who are most over extended will have their wings
clipped first.

I'd help
them by allowing full VAT relief on restoration to habitatable condition of
derelict property without having to do the existing demolish/rebuild cycle.

I'd go along with that, and also exempt home improvement in general.



Owain


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , IMM
writes

A sad case of brainwashing here. The economy is the best it has been in
living memory.


Thanks to Maggie sorting out restrictive union practises and paying off
the mountain of debt that Wilson and Callaghan accumulated.
Now remind me what was Phoney telling us in April 1997; Ah I remember -
"we will end the practise where employers pay **** wages of £3/hr and
expect the taxpayer to make up the difference in benefits". And after
nearly 7 years of 'socialism' we have many more millionaire lawyers, and
*army* of people employed by the DTI, Jag+=2 and the NHS to do precisely
nothing. Meanwhile Chinese and Greek nationals are 'employing' their
fellow country folk to pick cabbages in Cornwall in return for 10p a day
and a tin of dog food (in the case of the Greek) and trip to seaside for
the Chinese - every day, rain or shine for about the same, and a free
funeral chucked in.
--
Andrew

In article , Huge
writes
"Owain" writes:

What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from CGT
and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value per annum
equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain in value above
tax-free gain taxed at 80%.

Yes, why should those damn property owners make any money? Take it off
them! Confiscate it!


You seem to be festering in an illusion that house prices can keep on
rising at rate that is many times the RPI and that somehow this is a
good thing and can go on for ever. Ask an engineer or biochemist what
happens when an amplifier or a biological process loses its negative
feedback - disaster, and so it is, will be, and has been with the
housing market. The next 'correction' will be as nasty as any in the
past. In the absence of common sense amongst the house-buying great
unwashed, the only negative feedback is one of
1) higher interest rates (which we have had in the past under Lab and
COn)
2) Higher unemployment (had that too under lab and con)
3) Restrictions on what you could borrow (Wilson /Callaghan loved that
one - MAggie scrapped it).
4) Sudden cut in population (plague, flue, sars, meteorite)

If businesses are taxed on assets as well as profits, we should the
silly smug house-owner be exempted.
If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.
Don't forget the re-rating due in 2006 - those of you dreaming of how
much your house is 'worth'.
--
Andrew

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:06:14 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I suspect that the reality is that this is a way to obfuscate the
steadily declining standards in education.

If they decline much further, there will be no one around in thirty
years with the ability to recognise a misspelling in Government
documents or university papers, and then we shall be the laughing
stock of the world. The home of the English language inhabited by
people who do not know it properly.

THe goal posts of the existing system have been moved to the point
that they are off the pitch and in the crowd; therefore the time has
come to move to a different pitch and play a different game.

Indeed. How long shall this new game last?

MM

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

MM

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:28:59 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

What about removing residency and spousal inheritance exemptions from CGT
and replacing Stamp duty and allowing a tax-free gain in value per annum
equal to the bank base rate, compounded annually. Any gain in value above
tax-free gain taxed at 80%.

So if bank base rate is 10% a property bought for 50k would have tax-free
gain to 80k in 5 years. If it was put on the market at 100k the vendor would
get 84k after the 80% marginal tax on 100k minus 80k.

The market would not stand that house being sold for 180k with 80k going in
tax for the vendor to receive 100k current value. There would be little
incentive for vendors to inflate prices because a large part of the gain
would go in tax. Moreover, the concept of borrowing huge amounts of money to
buy a house anticipating high gains in value would fail, so people would
incur less debt burden, less capital would be tied up in the inflexible and
unproductive property market and people could return to the concept of
*saving before* buying a house rather than payng back afterwards. Other
forms of investment would look more attractive against property, releasing
capital for business investment, and the gap in property values between
different parts of the country would be brought closer to previous values.
There would also be some compensation to periods of high interest rates
because they would result in a higher tax allowance in the longer term.

Far too much fiddling at the edges. The only thing that will bring the
price of houses down is to increase the supply of dwellings (not
necessarily houses alone; flats both to buy and rent are a huge source
of supply across mainland Europe).

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

...and Tone has been trying to stop this.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes

A sad case of brainwashing here. The economy is the best it has been in
living memory.


Thanks to Maggie ....

snip drivel

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:07:45 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

MM

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for.

I prefer the glass to be half full. It's more optimistic than half
empty and the reality is the same.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:33:42 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

..and Tone has been trying to stop this.

on the basis of two negatives making a positive?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:33:42 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:08:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

That you may, but I see evidence of positive and negative things in
each country.

Ours seems to be top-heavy in the negatives.

..and Tone has been trying to stop this.

on the basis of two negatives making a positive?

LOL, so funny Andy.

Andy Hall wrote in message ...
You might think a little differently if you had to act as executor of
a complex estate during bereavement.
Just doing that myself.
It is not an appropriate time to be dealing with complicated tax
matters, not to mention the invasion of privacy by officaldom.
I've found IHT remarkably straightforward. Measures to avoid it are complex
but, after the event, well, it's just give us 40% of what you were worth 7
years ago plus anything you might have squirreled in between.
IHT should be abolished. The deceased has already paid income tax,
VAT and possibly CGT and frequently has little left to bequeath, even
less if long term care is required in late life.
If they have little to bequeath, there shouldn't be any IHT.
For many of the elderly, this is a source of considerable distress
because they would like to be to hand something to their children or
grandchildren.
They can if they think ahead 7 years. It's probably well known to The
Revenue and psychologists that everyone thinks they've got at least 7 years
left. My late father in law started giving things away at 90. Talk about
optimism!