Clause 24 Amendments By Gauke

[pipllman]

There are some notices of amendments to the finance bill by David Gauke

For clause 24, I think they are just tidying up the language and in no way detract from the aim of the clause as previously published

But, if anyone with a better understanding spots anything significant...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0057/amend/pbc0570810a.1-7.html

[Guest_growlers_*]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/467228/Amendment_22-26_to_Clause_24.pdf

[pipllman]

Clause 24 is passed.

Unanimously it would seem

Interestingly, in the debate, it was stated that 94% of landlords will have to pay more tax as a result of clause 24

post 363

http://www.propertytribes.com/landlord-tax-changes-join-share-our-action-plan-t-127621827-37.html

[Guest_northshore_*]

Passed debate with amendments, not yet 'passed': http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/finance.html

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3d8b1335-1eda-4e8d-8323-3cdd64569d09 From 10:06.

There's an interesting brief exchange between (I think) Roger Gale Rob Marris and Mark Garnier on house prices (although it does revert to supply rather than demand factors)

EDIT: Try it now

Edited October 13, 2015 by northshore

[pipllman]

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/finance.html

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3d8b1335-1eda-4e8d-8323-3cdd64569d09 From 10:06

link is working now, thanks

Edited October 13, 2015 by pipllman

[Robodoc]

Clause 24 debate starts from 1:02:00 or so.

[Bland Unsight]

Passed debate with amendments, not yet 'passed': http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/finance.html

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3d8b1335-1eda-4e8d-8323-3cdd64569d09 From 10:06.

There's an interesting brief exchange between (I think) Roger Gale Rob Marris and Mark Garnier on house prices (although it does revert to supply rather than demand factors)

EDIT: Try it now

And at 10:18:37 you can hear Bustamove and the Poverty11Later crew going under the wheels of the bus. The fact that basic rate taxpayers affected are "overwhelmingly" those who have "quite large portfolios and and maybe have leveraged up to a greater extent than the typical buy-to-let landlord" appears to be offered as a reason not to worry about the impacts of the clause, ("average pre-tax rental income of over £64,000 and own six properties compared to the average of two").

As we argued at length here, these moves are to reduce the tax incentives to leverage into property and as a result if people refuse to sell then those who leveraged most into property will be the most badly burned. When did any of this get complicated?

Any Poverty11Later lurkers still waiting for a miracle, give up. The Hit List will not save you. Sell now. Sell everything.

Of course if your dumb as shit highly geared property investment strategy means that you don't have the equity to pay the CGT then pray for house price inflation, stop re-mortgaging and sell when you can.

If you conspire to arrange your personal insolvency despite the amount of warning you are getting on this then you deserve to end up broke.

[mrtickle]

link is working now, thanks

Spoilsports, I wonder why it's audio-only?

[Bland Unsight]

Spoilsports, I wonder why it's audio-only?

Apparently the decision was taken that the extent to which the Minister did not give a f**k was so obvious from the video feed that eleven Poverty11Later posters had their blood "literally" boil as they watched. Keen to avoid further casualties they killed the feed.

[Guest_growlers_*]

There is a further opportunity for amendments apparently.

[Bland Unsight]

There is a further opportunity for amendments apparently.

In principle once they finally "get it" and understand how the Tenant Tax has "unintended consequences" they could repeal the Act. Meanwhile back in the real world...

[mrtickle]

Wow :-) http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/3d8b1335-1eda-4e8d-8323-3cdd64569d09?in=10:11:04

one MP concerned that it WON'T reduce house prices, which are "far too high all around the country", then gets challenged, and robustly defends that view! Get in!

[pipllman]

yes, there are several more stages - as per the link originally provided by northshore

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/finance.html

[mrtickle]

Passed debate with amendments, not yet 'passed': http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/finance.html

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3d8b1335-1eda-4e8d-8323-3cdd64569d09 From 10:06.

There's an interesting brief exchange between (I think) Roger Gale Rob Marris and Mark Garnier on house prices (although it does revert to supply rather than demand factors)

EDIT: Try it now

I was so pleased with it I was typing a transcript to send to some people I know... managed to lose it though through finger trouble! Garnier sounded stunned and furious, said it would be "absolutely astronomically catastrophic", hmm I don't think so :-)

[Bland Unsight]

I was so pleased with it I was typing a transcript to send to some people I know... managed to lose it though through finger trouble! Garnier sounded stunned and furious, said it would be "absolutely astronomically catastrophic", hmm I don't think so :-)

Garnier speaks with a forked tongue, playing politics.

Mark Garnier, Conservative MP for Wyre Forest, said the Chancellor’s changes should bring private landlords’ tax relief more in line with the rates of relief companies could claim, currently 20 per cent.

He added: ‘Buy-to-let has massively distorted the property market, resulting in rises in prices. We also don’t particularly want the nation’s working capital in non-productive assets. When you have a buy-to-let you don’t employ people to create widgets or manufacture aircraft engines.’

Source

When Garnier implicitly suggests that prices are too high, it's good common sense, seeking to reduce financial instability. When Rob Marris makes the same suggestion explicitly it's likely to bring about the end of the world, apparently.

I'm still going to go with the idea that Cameron and Osborne are happy to see prices fall now that their nice little boom has served its purpose, but that they have no interest in being seen as responsible for triggering those falls. Easiest way get prices on the move would be to water down MMR, but no movement on that front yet, and for me that continues to speak volumes about the long term direction of policy.

[Guest_northshore_*]

I was so pleased with it I was typing a transcript to send to some people I know... managed to lose it though through finger trouble! Garnier sounded stunned and furious, said it would be "absolutely astronomically catastrophic", hmm I don't think so :-)

The Mark Garnier who also serves on the Treasury Select Committee; someone obviously reknown for bombarding the Chancellor, MPC, PRA etc with his probing public-interest concerns.

[Guest_growlers_*]

Garnier speaks with a forked tongue, playing politics.

Source

When Garnier implicitly suggests that prices are too high, it's good common sense, seeking to reduce financial instability. When Rob Marris makes the same suggestion explicitly it's likely to bring about the end of the world, apparently.

I'm still going to go with the idea that Cameron and Osborne are happy to see prices fall now that their nice little boom has served its purpose, but that they have no interest in being seen as responsible for triggering those falls. Easiest way get prices on the move would be to water down MMR, but no movement on that front yet, and for me that continues to speak volumes about the long term direction of policy.

I thought MMR was controlled by the boe.

Anyway, they clearly don't want more HPI but that's not the same as wanting a hpc.

If they do want a hpc they need it over 2 years before the next election presumably which means they need it to start asap.

Surely the BTL changes would have been more aggressive to achieve this. Maybe more BTL intervention on the way shortly?

Edited October 13, 2015 by growlers

[Bland Unsight]

I thought MMR was controlled by the boe.

That's one way to look at it, but as the FSA began the MMR and they were shut down by Osborne and Osborne chose to set up the current FPC/FCA arrangement and the new arrangement has continued in the same direction of travel with the MMR my read is that the MMR approach is condoned and presumably favoured by the Treasury. The fact that the Osborne appointee at the Bank, Carney, has also continued in the same direction is just more evidence to support the interpretation. Hence my argument is that Osborne has had plenty of opportunities to muzzle the MMR had be wanted to, but he hasn't taken any of them. This contrasts to the way that the EU MCD was dead on arrival in the UK.

[Bland Unsight]

Surely the BTL changes would have been more aggressive to achieve this. Maybe more BTL intervention on the way shortly?

Lots of possible interpretations of that, including the one set forth by Rob Marris at the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on the Finance Bill which is that without a decent lead in time the changes would be "de facto retrospective". With an illiquid asset like housing if people want to respond to altered tax incentives by selling then you need to give them a little time to sell. As these incentives favouring property have been in place for a long time it was radical enough to unwind them. Unwinding them overnight would have been beautiful from an hpc perspective but perhaps a little politically difficult. One of the great things about these changes has been the lack of fuss. Aside a bit of embarrassing special pleading by the clown at the Telegraph the Poverty11Later campaign has got absolutely nowhere.

I could be completely wrong, and I'm now somewhat wedded to a particular perspective, but I still like the analogy of Osborne being bored of playing Jenga and wanting it to end (by causing a collapse) but not actually wanting to be seen as responsible for the collapse.