Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

DB4

Who is this Mithta Speaka that Balls keeps referring to?!

Ask TANKER

labour mp for bradford east

You can snag an under £120k property in londonistan, if you are not too fussy.


http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/London-87490.html?maxPrice=120000&retirement=false&partBuyPartRent=false

there's good properties in medway region with very good links to london at <£250k ..... that's where my paupies buy to let is, and why i know

By Janet Daley
2:25PM GMT 03 Dec 2014
The Chancellor's final pre-election set piece should have knocked Labour's campaign well off course

Well, some of the major hints about what the Chancellor "would have to admit" in the Autumn Statement turned out to be disinformation. He didn't admit to anything. The deficit, contrary to general belief, was not up but down. As was the expected borrowing requirement. George Osborne had not, in fact, got the country into more debt. True, the tax receipts were lower than might have been expected, considering how much employment had increased, but even with that little setback Mr Osborne managed, with a single bound, to bring happy news about the national finances. This was because of a quite amazingly helpful revision of forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility. This may seem like a very convenient miracle but, for the moment, at least it was a devastatingly blow to the Opposition. It won't actually mean a lot to the havering voter who tends to regard national deficits as too abstract by half, but it does knock the stuffing out of Labour's critique of the Osborne programme. Which seemed to be the object of the exercise.

This was a very political statement designed to throw Labour into disarray. The Tories are now running against Ed Miliband and Ed Balls - and it's personal, hence the Wallace and Gromit jokes. There was a lot of Gordon Brown-style bragging about the government's economic achievements, and quite a lot of tinkering with details that would have been largely incomprehensible to the folks at home. There was money – as we already knew – for those favoured road works, and the NHS, and for scientific research (very Gordon Brown). There was yet another "clampdown" on tax avoidance and something that seemed to be called "aggressive tax management" especially by multinational companies. Mr Osborne rattled it all off at breakneck speed as if he were dying to get to the good bits at the end. And then they came. First there was the next change in the personal tax allowance which sounded pretty unexciting: up from £10,500 to £10,600. But then he announced that this would now be extended in full to higher-rate tax payers – which increases the threshold for the 40 per cent rate by a significant enough sum to make a difference to middle income families. This was a kind of down payment on the Prime Minister's promise to raise the threshold to £50,000 over the life of another parliament. So that's one for the Tory core vote.

But we were still waiting for the rabbit that would give us the shape of the election campaign – and then it arrived. When that giant bunny jumped on to the floor of the House, it must have thrown Labour's election strategy into chaos. The Osborne reform of stamp duty is more revolutionary than it looks. By bringing its logic into line with income tax – in which you pay an increasing charge only on that proportion of the price which exceeds a given limit, rather than on the whole amount – Mr Osborne has significantly helped those at the lower end of the market while clobbering those at the highest end. That makes it very difficult for Labour to sustain the charge that the Tories are the "party of the rich". His policy is also eminently more fair than a mansion tax because it will not affect people living in houses that happen to have increased wildly in value over the decades, due to forces completely beyond their control. It will be a one-off charge on those who are purchasing, not a wealth tax which would fall on those who are staying put. It will free up the bottom end of the market thus helping first-time buyers and liberating the property-purchase chains in which many middle-market houses are trapped. Above all, it will give a great deal of trouble to Labour's campaigning pitch. That, presumably, was the whole point.

The Telegraph

cynic

labour mp for bradford east , lol

That was funny , but he sounds more East European

Alfred , I think it was Chatham but could have been Rochester as they run into each other, but Gracie Fields once said it was the biggest Sh+t House that she had ever played in... my god and you own property there what on earth came over you -):

house of 249000 before today stamp duty £2490
house of 249000 today £2480 saved 10

its all a con by the cons looking after the rich again

New Stamp Duty Calculations.

Which calculation is correct for a house costing £270,000?

A. £3,500 (£125k = Nil; £125k @ 2% =£2,500; £20k @ 5% = £1,000) or
B. £2,900 (£125k = Nil; £145k @ 2% = £2,900)

A

All right I give up.

you pay tax at 2%o on 125 to 250 then from 250 5%

so a house of 250000 you neither save nor make tax before 2500 now 2500

now you pay no tax up to 125.000 but its now 2% instead of 1% up to 250.000

a house of 500.000 you pay2% on 125.000 £2500 then 5% on 250.000 = £15000

yesterday you would pay £ 15000

as Gracie was from Rochdale whence came Big Cyril and all sorts of other paedos, what does it say about Rochdale?

it was a repo against a bad debt so not a bad deal though i had to spend a fair bit to do it up
tenant is the young chap with the broken leg + his gf and child

it's actually a very good location for commuting and also with good schools - to allow those of the up-and-coming classes to queue-jump to give their children an unfair start in life :-)

a Osborne con trick .

well that hardly favours the wealthy does it!

now try your calcs on a house costing £1.5m and another costing £2.5m, neither of which would be remotely out of the ordinary in the home counties

on the new basis, i reckon that's stamp duty of £91,500 and £211,500 respectively

what would it be under the old regime?

cynic just pointing out that for the avge home up to 500000 their is no change as such Osborne told fairy tales on 98% would save that is the case up to 15000 home

the rich have bben stung but c/t will not go up

c/t?

out of curiosity, what would have been the stamp duty per above?

it would be interesting know what % of homes across uk are sold at or below £125k and again between £125k and £250k

if no difference at £500k that's also fine, but again what % sold between £250k and $500k?

those are much fairer questions