On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

I disagree entirely. House price inflation is caused by having too few
houses for too many people. Hitting property developers just prevents houses
being built or renovated and is a simple populist and utterly erroneous
course of action that will make things worse.

It's a bit like hundreds of years ago when speculators would stockpile food
before harvest and make a bomb if the harvest was bad (but usually made some
losses in most years). People tried to tax them to extinction too. The
result was that no-one risked stockpiling, so if the harvest really was bad,
then there was no food at all and everyone died.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

Hopefully he'll be intelligent enough to see that a tax on employment
mobility reduces economic competitiveness. At the same time he could
notice
that the ridiculous manner that tax duty bands apply to the whole value
over
a certain figure, rather than just the excess, seriously distorts the
market
around those price points.

A neighbour has a very nice well located right in front of the woods, 3 bed
house. It was fine with one kiddie then another comes. Being an accountant
he calculated it would be cheaper to extend on the back than go for a bigger
house because of stamp duty ect. They would also find it difficult to get a
house in such a good location too. The extension is to "!their" design too.
Apart from the building mess, it appears a win, win situation.

In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly,

Hopefully he'll have the sense to introduce transitional bands so
that (say) you pay the same at £200K and £300K but there is no
sudden step change at £250K instead of the current 1%-3% jump so the
transitional rate would be 7% on the £200-300K band. The problem
with this is that the press would have a field day pointing out that
the stamp duty on a £240K house had gone up from £2,400 to £4,800
whilst ignoring the fact that houses that were priced at £249,999
could now be sold for £260K leaving the seller considerably better
off. And at £275K you'd pay £7,250 instead of the current £8,250.

But it would be easier just to charge everyone 5% g

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

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

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

Christian McArdle wrote

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

I disagree entirely. House price inflation is caused by having too few
houses for too many people.

Yes, but the main factor is availability of finance - prices would not go up if
buyers could not borrow so easily. Being able to borrow more funds at low
interest rates, as at present, allows people to make higher offers to get the
place they want. If the interest rate goes up, down will come the amount they
can borrow and down will come prices. This was the cause of the negative equity
problems in the early 90's.

But simply using interest rates to control house prices depends on all lenders
sticking to the rules about factoring salaries. Of course they don't, and
nobody polices them, with the result that house prices (and agents' commissions
along with them) are spiralling.

Peter

Huge wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".


Spot on - and it's a very carefully engineered shift in perception,
which has taken several years to mature.

--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Spot on - and it's a very carefully engineered shift in perception,
which has taken several years to mature.

I have never read such crap!

Try reading your own posts on this subject
Regards
Capitol
IMM wrote in message ...
I have never read such crap!

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:55:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Spot on - and it's a very carefully engineered shift in perception,
which has taken several years to mature.

I have never read such crap!

You normally write it.....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.



Another bit of sense:-)
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Huge wrote:
I imagine the midnight oil is being burned to work out how to
confiscate the proceeds of house price inflation without being
booted so far out of office that he'll be standing for the job
of Mayor of Tblisi.

But arguably there is a problem here. When there were rumours of CGT
on houses the economics editor of 'The Business' wrote a piece about
how hundreds of thousands of homeowners would risk being left
destitute by such a tax. I wrote to him berating him for his Daily
Mail shock-horror style and pointing out that if your property
hadn't gained in value you wouldn't have any tax to pay, and if it
had you still kept most of the gain, and got the very reasoned reply
back that the real problem was that loads of people had taken out
further borrowings against the perceived equity in their properties
which they would not be able to repay if their gains were taxed.

Most commentators seem to agree that it is all this borrowing
against house price increases that has kept the economy buoyant, but
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 whilst arguably it
should have acted while we were all having a good time - but who
wants to spoil a party with warnings about hangovers?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In article ,
Huge wrote:

Unlikely. He appears to be driven entirely by short-termism,
greed and spite, and the standard socialist motivation that
everything should belong to the State, to which everyone should
be beholden.

I agree. The job of local and central gummint these
days seems to be dedicated to squeezing more and more
money out of the proles..... either as a hidden under-
tax, or by a method that can be spun to look politically
acceptible (and if a pollie stands up on his hind legs
and utters the phrase "User Pays" one more time, I'll
bloody well throttle him.... the Users have already paid,
and paid, and paid.... all their working lives).

Note that there is no corresponding improvement in services.
The extra money is required to keep them all in the style
to which they have become accustomed, and to fund all those
index-linked pensions.

Rant over.

--
Tony Williams.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable
to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Another bit of sense:-)

I bombard you with sense constantly.

In article , Huge
wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Which is a badge some of us would wear with pride, bearing in mind what the
pseudo-commies get up to. I'm old enough to remember the last time this
shower got in and the utter devastation they caused.



--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge
wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Which is a badge some of us would wear with pride, bearing in mind what
the
pseudo-commies get up to. I'm old enough to remember the last time this
shower got in and the utter devastation they caused.

What devastation would that be?

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:17:54 +0000, "Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)"
wrote:

In article , Huge
wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Which is a badge some of us would wear with pride, bearing in mind what the
pseudo-commies get up to. I'm old enough to remember the last time this
shower got in and the utter devastation they caused.

Presumably, then, you regard:

- the poll tax
- the Miners' strike
- the police being used as the paramilitary wing of a political party
- taking the country to war over a few sheep
- the wilful destruction of manufacturing industry
- the wilful destruction of the communities supported by manufacturing
industry
- selling off national assets at bargain basement prices

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Oh no....... :-(





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get back to
centre.

"Phil" wrote in message
...

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get back to
centre.

Quite right. In fact the Liberals have, so-called more left policies than
New Lab.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:31 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
...

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left.

So fairly soon, as this leftward trend progresses, we should get back to
centre.

Quite right. In fact the Liberals have, so-called more left policies than
New Lab.

Which is why I am going to vote Lib Dem next time (as I did last time,
but not in 1997, when I voted Labour and rue it to this day).

MM

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable
to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Oh no....... :-(

Do you mean prices will still keep rising? How do you figure this out?

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:44:28 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable
to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Oh no....... :-(

Do you mean prices will still keep rising? How do you figure this out?

No. More that you're about to plug in tape no. 3 - the one about land
redistribution, land value tax, Henry George, Kevin Cahill, Paxo,
Elizabeth Windsor and the House of Lords.

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:44:28 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or
that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital
gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and
Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on,
preferable
to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Oh no....... :-(

Do you mean prices will still keep rising? How do you figure this out?

No. More that you're about to plug in tape no. 3 - the one about land
redistribution, land value tax, Henry George, Kevin Cahill, Paxo,
Elizabeth Windsor and the House of Lords.

I am?

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Not forgetting the tango, of which I am a master.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.

It would?

Andy Hall wrote:

Why don't you post all your material on a web site, then all you would
need to do is post a URL. Think of the time saving and the extra cha
cha cha that you could enjoy.

Everybody else could out together another site refuting all your
arguments and life would be really simple.


Can we also have a separate site for the "cheap, crappy tools replaced
frequently v. quality tools that last" debate? Happy to host both of
those for free.

--
Grunff