Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

leicestersq

New Members
  • Posts

    5,414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by leicestersq

  1. Many people seem to support taxes that they don't think they will pay. However, most are too stupid to realise that taxes that others pay are always extended so that everyone ends up paying.

    If a LVT were introduced, we would end up with income tax staying as it is and property above 1 million being taxed, then the amount would go up, then the tax would get extended to properties worth more than 250k, then to all properties.

    Those people who support LVT need to think about whether they would want to pay 2.5k per year to live in a 250k house/flat. And no doubt the amounts would go up.

    My view is that a progressive LVT will cause land reform. Do you agree?

  2. The major costs are:

    [1] Property cost which we all know why it is so high

    [2] Government mandated adult to child ratio, so you have to pay more even if you don't like which leads to

    [3] Wages of staffs at NMW, and of course some bleeding heart things that the wage is too low and that should be doubled.

    Don't worry though as the Japanese may be coming to the rescue soon as they develop robots to take care of their old. With some adaptation,

    they will work with the youngs as well.. but oppps.. machines will be taking our jobs so we must ban the importations of such machines.

    The reason that the costs are so high is that the state has to pay huge amounts of money for those not working, which means diverting money from those that are to those that are not. The explosion in the pensioner population is a particularly large burden, one that looks unsustainable to me.

  3. Bad example, over the course of 800 years there was a lot of innovation including the invention of concrete, development of fast food, roads, aqueducts, public sewage systems, under floor central heating (ok gonna leave it there before I start to sound like a poor man's Monty Python!).

    The big difference was a moral one in that it was socially acceptable to keep other humans as slaves, something which is frowned on now, you don't need to develop combine harvesters if you own a few hundred slaves (and as a matter of fact they also developed devices for harvesting cereals so bad example yet again).

    I saw a documentary some time ago about the Greeks and the fact they discovered rudimentary principles of steam power before even the Romans were around, their answer for why the Greeks didn't have an industrial revolution 2200 years ago was that they took the discoverer to one side and said to him "Look old chap your going to have to drop this, what will we do with all the slaves?"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

    Of course the way we're going slavery could be said to have made a modest return :D

    I cant help but think that the industrial revolution needed some stuff that the Romans didnt have, particularly the Scientific Principle, and a more modern banking system. The free thinking ideals encouraged by Protestantism (I'm not religious by the way) were key to this development.

  4. the banks are detatching their IR's away from the BoE base rate, i know people who are remortgaging this year, and they took out the mortgage 2 years ago. nothing has changed in their circumstances the base rate has stayed at 0.5%, but the bank has proposed a minimum 1.9% rise this year in their mortgage.

    so the banks arnt beleive the BoE

    Banks will charge as much interest as they can. If there is a tight market for the supply of credit, and high demand for it, rates will go up.

    Bank of England is happy enough with that. They dont want banks to park money with them, hence the 0.5% base rate.

  5. The Bankers ALL had their Salaries Doubled or Trebled about three years ago as a tax dodge precaution against Govt taxing their bonuses!

    They now PRETEND to take lower bonuses to pacify the ignorant (but I have a long memory :lol:)

    How many of you remember this or have sussed it? :P

    It is one thing for private companies to do this, quite another for banks under control of the taxpayer.

    Pensions linked to basic as well, no wonder Rbs has little chance of returning to profit.

  6. My point is that you need to look at the demographics. A policy that screws over a large group of people is not the way to get elected.

    Sadly true. The fact that the current policy of no land value tax effectively screws over a different group of people doesnt get voted against because people dont realise it is happening.

    The problem is here that by making it palatable, you reduce the revenue. I wonder if there is any data on how many houses are worth more than £1m .... there will be a lot, but the vast majority will be less. You only get the revenue if the net is set broad enough that it actually affects a large number of people.

    Well I did double the rate, so revenue would be reduced on properties from 1 - 2 million, but increased for properties above that value. Not sure what the figure would be for overall revenue. What it does do is take away that silly unfairness that occurs when a property increases in value by £1 from £999,999 to one million, and getting a tax of £10 grand a year applied to it. I never understood why they dont use this method of tax for stamp duty.

  7. What about a 1% tax on properties over 1mGBP?

    10K a year per home, little sympathy from the populace for the old lady, and say 5% off income tax?

    It would win them the election.

    A decent idea. I would tweak it by saying it should be 2% over the value of £1 million.

    A better idea would be to have a progressive land value tax, based on the total amount of property you own.

  8. So, outside of your HPCland, are you going to force little old dears on small pensions to sell up ?

    Ah the emotive little old lady argument. No sympathy for young people that cant buy anywhere decent and who are the ones slogging away at work providing for said little old lady?

    And, what about the income taxes that so many of the middle classes pay in swathes... this is just another one.

    Those working middle classes will gain. I suggest a progressive land value tax, with penal rates for non UK citizens. Most working middle class UK families will gain as a result.

    Asking them to find £10,000 a year out of net income (for a £1M 'average' (yes I know) family house in London or the better parts of the SE) - that's around £18k-20K of earnings out of the window - ON TOP of the large income tax they already pay.... and on top of the £2,500/4K gross of earnings to pay the council tax....

    Did you factor in the reductions in their income tax in those calulations?

    are you all turning into complete communists here ?

    What is your definition of communist? Those who wish to move the burden of taxation onto the land rich?

    I havent heard that one before.

  9. This is the political reason it will never happen. If you start levying a 1% tax on all property, then people in reasonable houses on reasonable pensions will get hit hard. Take an unremarkable house of £300K - that's 3 grand a year to find on an unremarkable pension of (say) £16K.

    Basically you're going to say "if you're not in work, you have to live in a small flat". This is a sure fire way to get the SAGA mob out with pitchforks, and there are a LOT of them. It will be broader than the SAGA mob, because everyone approaching 65 will realise they are about to be screwed.

    That is what a land value tax should do. It is all about redistributing the land by taxing those that hog it all for themselves. If they want to have a lot of valuable land at the expense of others, then they should pay. The whole point of it is to make those equity rich people start paying their share.

    What is so bad about selling up and moving to somewhere cheaper anyway? If they get on with it they will be glad they did. The families that get to move out of the flats and into a family home will be better off too.

  10. Can't you READ. Osborne has no money do you really think they will reduce Income tax by 16%....?

    They love serfs like you , capos in a prison camp doing the guards bidding.

    Greg,

    whilst I have some sympathy with your argument, the truth is that there is always a choice as to where you place the burden of taxation. If they did levy this land, then taxes elsewhere would either be reduced elsewhere, or there would be more government spending.

    We always get people on these debates that seem to be saying that you cant readjust where the burden falls. It seems like a defeatist argument to me, I believe that it can be done. If you believe it cant then you are saying that whoever is in power will just raise more and more tax when they see the opportunity to do so. If that is the case, then why have the debate? There wouldnt be any point even organising a protest, as the best you could do would be to replace one set of perpetual tax raisers with another set.

    In reality though, you can have the debate and governments do have to decide where the burden of tax will fall, and the people can influence that decision. The Tories were quite keen on a Poll tax, the people said no and instead we had more VAT instead.

    Same here, should we tax land or income?

    Well I reckon you need to do both. There ought to be a PROGRESSIVE land value tax on residential land (commercial and agricultural land needs to be treated slightly differently) with discounts for UK citizens, and penal rates for non-UK citizens. You can then use the money raised to help introduce a citizens income to replace all other benefits, and put an incentive in front of everyone to go and work with a marginal rate of tax well below 100%.

    Such a policy though needs withdrawal from the EU, and the establishment of a citizens database.

  11. You portray the B of E as a white knight riding in to save us. Personally I think they are just as black as the FSA and our crooked politicians.

    The FSA and B of E are joined at the hip by Lord Turner

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/court.htm

    What would you think if the FSA's Hector Sants or Lord Turner becomes the next Governor of the Bank of England?

    I think I would get out of the pound.

    In general though, I think the BofE has done a good job. It warned about the crash in advance, and has tried to pick up the pieces.

    On the other hand they are paid too much and are doing nothing to prosecute the fraudsters.

  12. 3 years on - Lloyds Bank's takeover of HBOS is the TURKEY we all knew it was....

    Question still unanswered: WHY has "Sir" James Crosby not been prosecuted for fraud?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7883409.stm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/02/lloyds_and_hbos_humbled.html

    Read all the comments on that page: Very pertinent.

    What has happened about the revelations of Paul Moore which clearly show that he was sacked by Crosby for daring to tell the truth??

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Moore_(banking_manager) ??

    See all below.

    Note that some MP's are calling for Crosby and others to be stripped of their knighthoods - as per Fred the Idiot-Shred...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/01/tory-mps-knighted-bankers-fred-goodwin?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    Does anyone know if there is an investigation going on at all?

    I had heard that Peter Cummings was under investigation, but I havent heard of a trial. Trouble is that juries dont understand fraud of this nature very easily, and just one slip up by the prosecutors and judges rule a mis-trial. The chance of getting any justice out of this seems very slim.

  13. There has to have to have been a lot of people who knew about this for quite some time and withheld it.

    Lloyds Directors, HBOS exec's, The Government, The FSA, Institutions etc

    One of the things I am convinced of is that the Bank of England knew all about it, but did little than make obscure comments about it in Speeches by the governor.

    They were smarting over having the power of oversight taken away from them by Gordon Brown. I dont know if he deliberately allowed these Scottish banks to go out and commit massive crime, but one wonders. More likely he was influenced into doing so by the banking criminals themselves. Once they had managed to give oversight to the FSA, they could then pretty much do what they pleased.

    The B of E bided its time, and were sort of hoping for this disaster to unfold, as that was the only way it could get its powers back. If the FSA had done its job, locked up the crooked bankers and removed the banking licence from the Scots banks, they would still have that power today.

    I think that the BofE judged it right. If they had made a fuss, they would have been squashed by Brown. As Clare Short said at the Iraq inquiry, sometimes there is only so much you can do. At least the BofE have their powers back and they seem to be gradually reigning the banks back in. Certainly the obscene lending of the past by banks doesnt appear to be happening anymore, despite some crooked politicians trying to get the taxpayer to pay for indemnity schemes introduced to crank up lending ratios again.

  14. He is right, although this is the culmination of a deliberate policy of social engineering to make a sector of society dependant on the state.

    Paul Mason was not so critical of it when the Labour government were in power.

    Are you sure it is deliberate social engineering? Why attribute this to anything other than a result of globalisation and unintended consequence?

    To say that this was all part of some deliberate well thought out plan is giving someone a lot of credit for coming up with a plan, and seeing it through to fruition. I havent yet met that sort of competence from Government.

  15. Sad

    The gap between top and bottom need to be reduced. However increasing their wages may only push up the cost of their rent and leave them no better off. Because rent prices are set at what the market can afford increase what people can afford landlords can charge more.

    If you increased the wages at Tesco, profits would fall, meaning less money for all those pension funds through dividends.

    Transferring money from the uber wealthy is a good goal to aim for though. I read that 300k would be what a director would be earning for a ftse company if their pay had stayed in line with the norm from about 1980. How to achieve that though? Where are all the Quakers who used to lead our companies?

  16. There used to be something called:

    The Iron Law of Wages

    ... asserting (amongst other things) that, no matter how poor they got, wages would always be enough to sustain the life and procreation of the workers.

    Now it's wages plus benefits plus willingness to hold your feet to the fire with personal debt, to reach the same subsistence level.

    It means wages on their own can quite happily reach levels that do not sustain life and procreation. That is, they would lead to the death or inability to produce a family of an unsubsidised employee.

    Socialism and debt and crony corporate fascism: the very pavement of good intentions.

    Lets not forget that when money is transferred in this way, there is an administrative cost which eliminates some of the income in the process of being transferred.

  17. all over is it?

    £40,000 drop not meaningful?

    My place has gone from £400 to £320 guestimate, and that was the councils calculations as I applied for a rates rebate.

    I guess £80,000 is a mere bagatelle.

    I guess your place isn't in the south east? I guess where we live changes our perception.

    I was trying to talk about the market generally of course, but as you point out, some prices are quite a ways down.

  18. I don't agree with the spectacularly wrong bit. In fact during the tail end of the boom in 2007, when Haliwide still had an annualised rate of 10%, most of us had quite conservative estimates and I think they were born out of wishful thinking too. At that time, Financial Planner and Realist Bear were the most bearish at circa -40% real. My own estimate was for -37.5% real, pre-crash. As we are now at -30% real, it looks like even the most bearish predictions pre-crash will come true. Even a bit of flat-lining until 2015 might get us to the then uber Bear's predictions..

    Trouble is, during the -17% meltdown of 2008, many HPCers revised their initial estimates upward, FP may have been one of those and of course the jury is still out. I have always stuck with ny initial prediction from 2006 of -37.5% real.

    -30% real is at odds with the reality I see. I guess your are talking about wrt to general prices rather than the general wage level, and definitely not wrt the after tax wage level? Even then, I cannot see prices having dropped in any meaningful way.

  19. Yeah, cos more taxes are better than less taxes

    Yes, it is true. Taxes on smoking for example, have discouraged people from smoking and extended the lives of many people. Likewise a tax on parking will encourage people to live closer to where they work, and to walk and cycle, making them fitter and healthier.

    On the other side of the equation, tax pays for things like schools and roads and hospitals, which we are all glad of.

  20. Good idea.....when I was working in an area with restricted parking, often close to rail stations, funny that...used to park in front of someone I knew drive...they had left for work before I arrived, I had left for home before they arrived home...win.win. ;)

    What happened on the occasions when they came home early, or left late? Thats bound to happen sooner or later.

    Of if they move and dont tell you?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.