Pre-budget Report On Now

[homeless]

PARLIMENT CHANNEL

HE JUST ADMITTED GROWTH AT 1 3/4 %

LOL

[Sledgehead]

He dashed thru a bunch of tax avoidance topics one of which included:

"misuse of SIPPS to purchase second homes"

Usually the stuff he dashes thru are the important bits.

Anyone have an idea what this might involve?

[OnlyMe]

PARLIMENT CHANNEL

HE JUST ADMITTED GROWTH AT 1 3/4 %

LOL

UK GDP approx £1.3T, so about £22.75Bn growth - about a THIRD OF THE GROWTH IN DEBT!

There is NO economic growth AT ALL.

[right_freds_dead]

There is NO economic growth AT ALL

[Guest Riser]

Worth watching just to see Shadow chancellor George Osbourne ripp Brown to pieces, Brown was squirming after trying to intimmidate Osbourne at the start. It was the first time I have seen someone make an effective attack on Brown in the commons.

[canny man]

I picked up the SIPPS thing too. He was quick but clear that 2nd homes will not be eligible for SIPPS.

Nice on Gordy - the rest is rubbish, but I like this measure if true.

[no accountant]

Worth watching just to see Shadow chancellor George Osbourne ripp Brown to pieces, Brown was squirming after trying to intimmidate Osbourne at the start. It was the first time I have seen someone make an effective attack on Brown in the commons.

George Osbourne was very effective! Even mentioned GBs tax on land as a 'Tax on affordable housing'

Great to watch!

[Guest rigsby II]

"misuse of SIPPS"

I was up at my accountants cooking the books last Friday.

He mentioned he had been on a course all about SIPPS.

One of the examples they worked through was of someone earning £150,000 a year, several kids, putting his maximum allowance in SIPPS, which meant to the tax-man his income was only £5,000 a year.

In which case he was also able to claim back £30,000 in benefits and the like.

£150,000 a year and able to claim £30,000 back off the state ?

Can't be right surely...

[IPOD]

He mentioned he had been on a course all about SIPPS.

It wasn't an Inside Track seminar was it?

One of the examples they worked through was of someone earning £150,000 a year, several kids, putting his maximum allowance in SIPPS, which meant to the tax-man his income was only £5,000 a year.

In which case he was also able to claim back £30,000 in benefits and the like.

£150,000 a year and able to claim £30,000 back off the state ?

Can't be right surely...

If he puts all his taxable income into his SIPP (which will naturally draw HMRC's attention: what is he living on if all his salary is going into his SIPP?) for tax purposes his income would only be £5,000 a year(for example). However if he put down his annual salary on a benefit form as £5,000 a year that would be benefit fraud.

[homeless]

why is the commons 3/4 empty now before the issues raised have been brought up?

we pay these fools wages

this housing crap hes talking is nothing more than he has already promised before, who the heck wants to own 1/4 of a home and pay rent on the rest, and housing assosiation homes? lets be honest here housing assosiations are just large landlords there nothing more than that.

So all in all his solution to the housing problem is to do shared ownership and build a load more rented houses.Well darn good of ya gordon i can sleep good at night now knowing that.

[Casual Observer]

why is the commons 3/4 empty now before the issues raised have been brought up?

we pay these fools wages

this housing crap hes talking is nothing more than he has already promised before, who the heck wants to own 1/4 of a home and pay rent on the rest, and housing assosiation homes? lets be honest here housing assosiations are just large landlords there nothing more than that.

So all in all his solution to the housing problem is to do shared ownership and build a load more rented houses.Well darn good of ya gordon i can sleep good at night now knowing that.

Yeah, but if people think it will keep prices lower then it will help the HPC cause!

[2005]

this housing crap hes talking is nothing more than he has already promised before, who the heck wants to own 1/4 of a home and pay rent on the rest, and housing assosiation homes? lets be honest here housing assosiations are just large landlords there nothing more than that.

So all in all his solution to the housing problem is to do shared ownership and build a load more rented houses.Well darn good of ya gordon i can sleep good at night now knowing that.

I expected nothing more...nothing less.

Propping up the housing market with cr@p schemes like this won't work. It is too late and it would take alot more than a few housing association part buy homes to keep the housing market afloat.

All that will happen is that the people most in need but who have a genuine desire to own a home will buy 1/4 of a house and when it all t1ts up they will be left owming part of a sub standard home that nobody wants to buy.

There shouls be a health warning attached to these schemes.

[RET]

surely this SIPPs thing is important. On PMT they are quoting him as saying:

"5.63 A small part of the proposed simplification would allow all registered pension

schemes to invest directly in residential property. To prevent the potential abuse of the

simplification rules, where people could claim tax relief in relation to pension contributions

into Self Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs) for the purpose of funding purchases of holiday

and second homes for their or their family's personal use, from 6 April 2006 SIPPs and all

other forms of self-directed pensions will be prohibited from obtaining tax advantages

when investing in residential property, and certain other assets such as fine wines. This

action will ensure that tax relief is only given to those whose purpose in making the

contribution is to provide themselves with a secure retirement income. However, the

Government remains committed to encouraging investment in a range of assets as part of

pensions saving and is therefore minded to allow SIPPs to invest in genuinely diverse

commercial vehicles that hold residential property, such as the proposed Real Estate

Investment Trust model (detailed further in Chapter 3). The Government will not hesitate to

take action if it becomes clear that people are trying to use collective vehicles to get around

the rules for prohibited assets."

It's not clear exactly what that means but it could be read as saying that all residential property is banned from SIPPs unless it is a REIT. Surely that neutralises much of the threat from SIPPs if true?

[IPOD]

what I would like to see is higher inflation (around 7%) to stabilise the housing market, and a vast reduction in employment of consultants and admin staff, retraining them to support our manufacturing industry.

Unfortunately this comment demonstrates the economic ignorance of the UK public. Inflation of 7% (including wages) would make current house prices LESS likely to fall, not more, and this obssession with retaining a business sector (manufacturing) in the UK which has absolutely no chance of competing with overseas manufacturing powerhouses like China and India is perverse in the extreme and would probably require subsidies from government which would make the CAP look like chicken feed.

[roblpm]

Just spotted a great business opportunity:

Check http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...report_1980.pdf

Selling for £45 according to the front cover.

I'll do you a copy for £20!!

[acidrob]

He said the world had faced inflationary pressures such as high oil prices, and the UK had taken action to slow rising house prices and consumer spending.

Anyone have any idea what 'action' the UK has taken to slow rising house prices and consumer spending?

[Spirit]

He dashed thru a bunch of tax avoidance topics one of which included:

"misuse of SIPPS to purchase second homes"

Usually the stuff he dashes thru are the important bits.

Anyone have an idea what this might involve?

Tory MP being interviewed on BBC2 now just said that they were still checking the small print, but it seemed that residential property could not go into SIPP.

Watching Brown squirm during Osbourne's reply was most enjoyable.

[Guest Riser]

Tory MP being interviewed on BBC2 now just said that they were still checking the small print, but it seemed that residential property could not go into SIPP.

Watching Brown squirm during Osbourne's reply was most enjoyable.

Here is the SIPPS section I think, looks like they only want people to invest through REITS

5.63 A small part of the proposed simplification would allow all registered pension

schemes to invest directly in residential property. To prevent the potential abuse of the

simplification rules, where people could claim tax relief in relation to pension contributions

into Self Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs) for the purpose of funding purchases of holiday

and second homes for their or their family’s personal use, from 6 April 2006 SIPPs and all

other forms of self-directed pensions will be prohibited from obtaining tax advantages

when investing in residential property, and certain other assets such as fine wines. This

action will ensure that tax relief is only given to those whose purpose in making the

contribution is to provide themselves with a secure retirement income. However, the

Government remains committed to encouraging investment in a range of assets as part of

pensions saving and is therefore minded to allow SIPPs to invest in genuinely diverse

commercial vehicles that hold residential property, such as the proposed Real Estate

Investment Trust model (detailed further in Chapter 3). The Government will not hesitate to

take action if it becomes clear that people are trying to use collective vehicles to get around

the rules for prohibited assets.

Edited December 5, 2005 by Riser

[Confiteor]

Some quick points:

1: Gordon Brownstuff's quivering lip when the House erupted as he tried to gloss over his growth revision to 1.75% was priceless.

2: The Lib Dems continually referred to the "housing "bubble" (their words) "which happened on GB's watch" and consumer debt. Chris Huhne on Sky News made the point every time he spoke, as did Vince Cable in his speech in the house. They are the only party who seem to understand.

3: According to Andrew Neil, the Government refused to provide a minister for the Daily Politics' coverage on BBC2, despite the BBC asking for two weeks. Such outrageous behaviour should actually be ILLEGAL in a supposed democracy.

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

The Video

Brown`s Speech. The Video

[mbga9pgf]

Just gave the piggies the bad news over at the whingeing Pig....

I think I can smell Bacon cooking!

[JBFTB]

Oh dear, looks as if the natives are getting restless...

BBC 'What did you think of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report?'

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jsp...=20051205164517

Hehehe!

Some of these are absolutely fantastic. I was so tempted to add my own, but everything I could think of has been covered, i.e. he's a bloody stupid imbecile who shouldn't be allowed near No. 10 and has breathtaking contempt for those who work hard whilst he joyfully swipes all their money. F*cker that he is.

[Sledgehead]

Here is the SIPPS section I think, looks like they only want people to invest through REITS

I think we need to get a difinitive answer on this. Given the amount of hype surrounding SIPPS this could be a giant-slayer.

[Neil D Possitt]

However if he put down his annual salary on a benefit form as £5,000 a year that would be benefit fraud.

Apparently not. I've been on the same course as rigsby's accountant by the sound of it, and it's perfectly true. They gave an example of someone with a 7 figure income who put all of it into a SIPP, and had a valid claim for Family Tax Credit as a result.

Even the lecturer said something along the lines "This is perfectly legal, but in my opinion highly immoral. If any of you advise your clients to do this I only hope you can sleep at night!"

[Sledgehead]

'UK's Brown to publish REIT proposals this month'

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&ar...&action=article

This sounds to me as if is actually trying to target funds at property development rather than property letting. ie stoke supply rather than demand.

However that development land tax seems retrograde in this context...

'Brown doubles North Sea oil tax'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4500540.stm

So oil isn't gonna get any cheaper then?

This is ridiculous and amounts to biting the hand that has fed him (tax revenue from high oil prices has helped him out no end - don't believe the cr@p about it being troublesome)