Thread 15 Starmer - Nolite te bastardes carborundorum

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5244293-thread-14-starmer-the-starmeristas-strike-back?page=40&reply=141334312

They've had 14 years to correct the skills shortages, their Brexit made matters far worse too.

The moment those reforms of private LLs you want, were mentioned, LL's would sell, even at a loss.

TBH your regulatory ideas sound more akin to something that would happen in China than Europe... so i wonder if you re being genuine.... i don't think you are.

Just on the China front, is UK now a battle ground of influence between US and China.
I saw that they are waiting on Chagos, after all, which is exactly what I predicted would happen.

Just on the China front, is UK now a battle ground of influence between US and China.

Now in an ideal world, if we had politicians that had some nous and an electorate that had some smarts, we would be making money from both sides.

The way things are going I can see England going Chinese, and Scotland going US. And unlike in Mexico, that is a wall we will build.

Yes @SerendipityJane - I agree. India profited massively from positioning themselves optimally vis a vis Russia, China and the US.

Where did they learn that ? 😁

The foundations are already there.

Measuring a person's worth in gdp is also damaging to a country. If the only thing of value is money, then you lose its worth.

The point of money is to make bartering easier, so that a person can trade a surplus of one item for an item they are short of. This has been forgotten in the pursuit of what? Money in itself is worthless. It's virtual, it doesn't exist, and as an idea its failed.

I'm not explaining my thoughts very well, but money should be a means to an end, not the end goal.

As I said yesterday: For the love of money is the root of all evil.

I don't think the UK necessarily is going to choose. I think it's very unlikely we will. It would be quite a foolish thing to do

"Make Money your servant, not your master" as my Mum used to say.

Stamp duty is a regressive tax on housing.

It is also making us globally uncompetitive with raising capital. Other jurisdictions don't have this cost.

The cost to remove SDLT would be £15 billion, would the gains in economic growth off set this?

Surely sellers would just increase the selling price? see what happened with the 5p cut in fuel duty, pretty much all of it NOT passed on.

Ed Davey is first to give a speech today

Making his speech, Davey says we are about to enter a four-year period where the US cannot be relied on as a partner. The UK must thus "step up", he says, and forge closer links with Europe. But, he adds, that does not mean Trump can or should be ignored.

The cost to remove SDLT would be £15 billion, would the gains in economic growth off set this?

If experience tells us one thing, it's NO.

If people haven't worked out the rich but tax cuts with pinky promises by now, then there is an argument they deserve all they get.

It's the same with the "promises" companies give when they take over UK businesses to trash their reputation and strip their assets.

@Alexandra2001 - they should not frontload stamp duty - it should be taxed on actual gains, surely?

Suspended Labour MP Mike Amesbury has pleaded guilty at Chester Magistrates' Court to assault by beating after punching a man

My point on stamp duty is simply a rebalancing of the generations, more broadly. So a ton of people got rich on house prices which was a fluke and can gift/get out of inheritance tax and pass it on to their relatives vs others who do not have that advantage and are stung with up front taxes before even buying a main home.
I completely agree with stamp duty on second homes etc - but main home purchase should be exempt and moneys ploughed back on onward purchases as well. People need to be able to buy and move house easily.

Well surely that would lead to fewer people selling? especially to downsize when kids leave etc.
Property gains are taxed when a 2nd home is involved and sometimes upon death, at much higher rates than 'duty.

I think there are bigger fish to fry than getting rid of SDLT... for example reform of council tax bands, not on the first 4 bands but from E onwards.

Whats stopping people buying and selling more easily, is affordability, not a relatively small amount of tax.

A £290k home attracts £2250 of SDLT.

Without passed down generational wealth, most people would never in a million years be able to buy a house.... yes of course its unfair but i don't see how you can change that, without forcing millions into negative equity and the economic disaster that would cause.

Just catching up. Going back a bit, somebody said you can’t increase spending without growth - well FDR and the New Deal would like a word on that. Also on the idea often expressed in other threads that pub,ic sector spending doesn’t increase growth. Lots of public expenditure (funded by borrowing if necessary) can absolutely lead to growth ball those workers having more money 8n their pocket but not enough to squirrel away off shore. What do they do? They spend it. In businesses, allowing growth to occur.
on the topic of landlords selling up - if they all do it, house prices will fall so more people can buy. Renting where LL’s hang on will drop in price.
Im sure I’m about to be called naïve, but hey ho. I can take it, if someone can explain why these things don’t work (genuinely interested to know)

Edit: I do get the negative equity argument. If it’s your home, it doesn’t matter that much in the grand scheme of things, and u less you want to buy again. If it’s for profit you either take the hit or carry on renting out.

The New Deal was predicated on future growth, not no growth.

Property gains are taxed when a 2nd home is involved and sometimes upon death, at much higher rates than 'duty.

Not if you do clever things with trusts. Remember there's a lot of land we have no idea who the owner is.

That is a bloody stupid thing to say. Perhaps he should stick to falling off leisure equipment

I am being genuine. As I said, I accept that this would take time and would need phasing in over many years. I imagine the biggest landlords would be first in the net and others would follow. Any change would need to account for exceptions - the pp who talked about moving for a job secondment, for example. But the bulk of BTLs are just ‘nest eggers’ and I don’t believe they should be able to do that, or should be heavily regulated if they do.

If there were a glut of sales immediately, that would be a good opportunity for HAs to be allowed to expand. Even so, I recognise that there would be turbulence in the market and things would need to be properly and carefully planned.

There was a time, in my lifetime, when houses were generally thought of just as places to live in, not as investments.

TBH, I think reform of housing, including house building, is much more important than most other issues facing the country.

I have to say that I think Labour’s house building plans will hit the rocks, but that’s a problem caused by a vast number of interests and objections and would face any government, but particularly one incapable of spending on infrastructure. Which is another good reason why the private rental sector needs overhauling.

Please don’t be so suspicious. It’s very unappealing.

What is a stupid thing to say?

I’m suggesting it could encourage future growth.