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.

i have no idea at all which is why i asked questions relating to house sales yesterday
what is the relevance as to whether sales are to first time buyers or others?



btw, hardly "multiple properties" ...... marital home + fortuitous small property in west london bought in 1978 + (quite) low value buy-to-let near chatham due to repo to settle bad debt

now sticky (the bounder) is the REAL man of property with several houses abroad and a few apartment blocks for rental in the northern tundra


as a total aside, were you were aware that there was very considerable jealousy among northerners to southerners even in the mid 15th century (wars of the roses time)?

Think man, think!


=======

15th century. Is that when the north were being starved?

obviously insufficiently :-)

i don't why the south was substantially the richer region (the trent was the notional divide) even then, but i'ld guess it's because london was the major hub for international trade and, generally speaking but not always, the seat for gov't, whether the court or parliament

What about Bristol and Liverpool, Glasgow even?

Manuel.

Why I asked the question on properties b/s is to get into perspective the effect on the number of voters "directly" effected by the housing tax changes.

I looked at various charts, but probably because I am not framing my questions correctly not getting answers I can understand. (I am feeling thicker today than usual.)

Again, the number b/s effected by changes I would guess are small, but it seems a stupid "give away" economically, but "politically" may also back fire.

However, I can see why the government is advocating "devolution" as they realise that their incompetencies will come back to haunt them and they want "local" thiefdoms to take the responsibility.

What a legacy from Cameron and Osborne.

.

.

energy the uk is under great pressure to keep the ligts on if we have a bad winter
the question is if we build all these homes that they say we need were is the power going to come from

which ever gov comes to power benefits have got to be cut

Max - not in 15th century ..... i don't know what % of the population lived in london, but assuredly it was far and away the largest city (population perhaps 50,000 as a total guess) and generated the greatest amount of trade and commerce

==============

fred - i'm not much interested in "how many votes", but certainly the old stamp duty and the way it was applied was totally iniquitous and unfair

i also like the idea that a form of "mansion tax" is applied at time of purchase only and is very visible, though assuredly that will not stop a future gov't from having further bites at the cherry

the other bits, like taxing companies when they play games with income generation is also common sense, though no doubt the lawyers and accountants will get ever fatter devising ways to escape ..... refusing to invest or similar is an unlikely side-effect and merely a bit of sabre-rattling that failed

Doodle, I stand by post 52060, on stamp duty the charge for the rich is minimal, if you can afford to spend a few million on a new house your hardly gonna miss a few thousand in extra stamp duty..

MrT - in lieu, should we have emergency supplies of cardboard boxes for people to sleep in, with extensions possible for living quarters?

genuinely .......
an excellent form of cheap and very efficient and even potentially quite attractive housing can be "built" very quickly from 20' and 40' freight containers

they're already used quite extensively as site accommodation

No stamp duty at all would be better. People on high incomes pay more tax by virtue of having more income to tax. I see no good reason why people on high incomes should pay a higher tax rate than anyone else. Everyone should pay the same rate of tax. Tax was introduced as a temporary measure to pay for a war and successive governments kept it as a way to get money easily that they then could waste.

Tax is not a moral issue, although governments try and give that impression to make people accept their rules. Tax avoidance is a good thing and people shouldn't be made to feel guilty for doing their best to minimise tax.

I suppose everything is relative to what people can afford Shortie. The new rates certainly help the people at the lower end of the market and as you say a few thousand more in extra stamp duty applies to the people who can afford it anyway.

Haystack, I on the other hand see every reason why people on high incomes should pay more tax than those on lower incomes. As for tax not being a moral issue of course it is. Funny you should make the connection between tax and war, lets look at morals now and see how the rich avoided being on the front-line, a great example of moral. Lets also remember that the rich stay rich due to tax and our ability to defend wealth...

Haze.

Take the "working masses" away and how much Wealth would the "wealthy classes" have made or are making.

(Shifting money across a table is not making "wealth". It is like preening yourself with the latest gadget.)


Tax is not a moral entity, but how you raise it is, how much you raise is, and how you distribute the tax raise to the ongoing "needs" and functioning of a developing society is.

If you hadn't "attempted to" raise taxes at "variable and sustainable rates", from all in a society and then put distributed it in various proportions to Education, Public health, Law and Order, infra-structure, and so on. you the UK would not have developed into the relatively "decent" society it now is. (The majority benefit from an advancing society.)

Some Darwinian idiots like yourself are forgetting the strength of the herd over the predators. The predators would die without the herd, not the other way around.)

Also, whilst friction is necessary and useful, to much is obstructive to development.

The right balance is the problem and this B. government has got it wrong.

Tax was introduced as a temporary measure to pay for a war and successive governments kept it as a way to get money easily that they then could waste.


And there lies the problem...it's too easy for governments to tax and waste.

Everything they touch tends to cost too much, and or doesent work properly.

They seem to have never heard of a contract in the normal sense.

The high income earners do pay more by virtue of being taxed on a higher income. Why should they pay a higher proportion than everyone else. There is no moral component involved. The government taxes people because they can. Does the moral argument change as the tax rates change. In the not too distant past we had 'super tax' rates of 87% for earned income and 98% for unearned income from investments. Were they more or less moral than now?

Some countries have very low tax rates and some havezeto rates. Are they more or less moral. Tax is just a method of the government raising money for their pet projects. If our government raises money and spends it on things that we disagree with then does this affect the moral case.

As far as the rich avoiding the front line, I see no evidence of that. Historicalky, rich families have lost large numbers in wars and are often the first to sign up.

It doesn't matter which party is governing, a proportion of our taxes will always be spent on things we don't agree with. It seems to be very difficult to have a fair system of taxation in place which encourages people to achieve and improve their standard of living and yet doesn't penalise them for being successful.

I think the problem with government is they have destroyed community through policy to a point where we no longer stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow countrymen and so appreciate hardships they maybe facing. Instead we are kept apart and fed media storeys about how our taxes have gone to the EU or to migrants that have invaded our communities.

Haze,

It is a pity that some of the "rich" families" didn't lose a few more members.

A large amount of "wealth" in the UK is handed down from the biggest and most immoral thugs who pillaged the country for personal benefit and then had it endorsed by those of similar ilk, gathering as governing bodies.

(Often, more interested in protecting their own "belongings and riches" than that of all in a society. Them against us. Primitive attributes, which you seem to crudely advocate and be representative of yourself.)

The problem is in many families their traits and morality has been handed down through the generations, although they have been restrained by representative government.