Gorgeous George's Autumn Statement

[Lord Bracknell]

You're arguing with the wrong person. My point was specifically about taxing the low-waged.

I'm not arguing with you at all, merely musing about the opportunities that exist for putting a positive spin on an apparent job creation programme that, in reality, is delivering a huge number of non-jobs where employees have practically no rights whatsoever.

 

[Hungry Joe]

There's far too much sensible debate on this thread, so I'd just like it on record that the Tories are still a bunch of self-serving twunts who'll see hell freezing over before I'd ever vote for them, and if you think posh boy Osborne gives a flying fanny about you then you are deluded.

Thanks for listening.

 

[Simster]

Your hunch is wrong. There was no 'boat' to 'miss', unless your brain happens to be hard-wired that way. I bought a shitty two bedroom flat opposite the park in the mid nineties purely so as a newly-divorced dad of two tiny wee kids they'd have somewhere nice to play on the weekends that they came to stay with me. Although DFLs would gladly pay very stupid money for it now, its still a shitty two bedroom flat. Meh

Precisely. It's clear to me that because you've only got "a shitty two bedroom flat" the rest of us who want stamp duty structured sensibly are "obsessed with property value"? Well not me, mate. I have ONE property, my house, and I'm looking to downsize because my mortgage is too big. I'm simply cutting my cloth according to my means, which is a fairly sensible move I'd have thought, but I have been seriously hamstrung by the previous retarded stamp duty structure introduced by Labour.

 

[Buzzer]

I'm not arguing with you at all, merely musing about the opportunities that exist for putting a positive spin on an apparent job creation programme that, in reality, is delivering a huge number of non-jobs where employees have practically no rights whatsoever.

It looks like you're arguing from where I'm sitting! I'm not trying to spin anything, I'm firmly with Herr Tubthumper with the view that employers who can't afford to pay people a living wage shouldn't be in the business of employing people. And I'd add that I think zero hour contracts are nothing more than modern bonded slavery.

It's not all black and white. There are some things, such as taxing the lowest paid, that the UK are actually not bad at whatever political party we're talking about.

 

[Mr Bridger]

Other investments are available. Yes I do.

Why didn't you invest in something else other than buy your own home?

 

[mikeyjh]

Why didn't you invest in something else other than buy your own home?

I do - I bought my house because it made sense for my circumstances and I could comfortably afford it. However, we've created a situation where borrowing massively to 'own' one's own home is an obsession. The reality is that there is nothing wrong with renting, it's almost always the cheaper option (though people always do a simple comparison between rental and mortgage payments) and allows for great flexibility. What we should be doing is enforcing strict rent controls and stronger rights for tenants.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I do - I bought my house because it made sense for my circumstances and I could comfortably afford it. However, we've created a situation where borrowing massively to 'own' one's own home is an obsession. The reality is that there is nothing wrong with renting, it's almost always the cheaper option (though people always do a simple comparison between rental and mortgage payments) and allows for great flexibility. What we should be doing is enforcing strict rent controls and stronger rights for tenants.

Agree with this. I also think we need a better balance of social housing projects and private to redress the current buy-2-let fuelled private landlord situation which benefits no one apart from the landlord.

 

[Ernest]

Agree with this. I also think we need a better balance of social housing projects and private to redress the current buy-2-let fuelled private landlord situation which benefits no one apart from the landlord.

Exactly, buy to letters should be taxed till they decide not to bother anymore. Nothing more immoral than someone buying their council house and then letting it on the private market

 

[Mr Bridger]

but if you eventually own your own home, then you do not have to rely on housing benefits, state handouts when the time comes if out of work etc, so who is the cheaper option for, you or the government?

Either way you pay money to a mortgage lender or private landlord and if you've paid for the house outright , surely you and your family are the winners in the long run and not the landlord.

You seem to be criticising people for wanting to 'own' the house they live in , but you do it yourself? strange that...

 

[Buzzer]

Nothing more immoral than someone buying their council house and then letting it on the private market

Sex with your partner's dad is probably more immoral.

 

[Mr Bridger]

Exactly, buy to letters should be taxed till they decide not to bother anymore. Nothing more immoral than someone buying their council house and then letting it on the private market

What about if they bought a private dwelling and let that out is that immoral?

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

The problem is people will always judge people in council houses. I was brought up on a council estate, Mum & Dad had always lived on a council estate, yet the very moment the council offered to sell them the house they snatched their hands off, waited two years and moved away from the nasty council estate. Call it snobbery, ambition or whatever you wish social housing will always be looked down upon.

We must build council housing stock and keep it as such, if people have ambitions to move on you do so but the house remains for people to rent.

 

[vegster]

I can't see a thread on this yet, although I'm not surprised our left-wing fringe are keeping their heads down.

It was an absolute triumph from the chancellor who put the 'Great' back into 'Great Britain' after the last lot highlighted, bolded and underlined the 'bust' in 'boom & bust'.

It's very difficult to pick out an individual highlight when there were so many, but the complete overhaul of the ridiculous stamp duty bands is long overdue. What is your favourite?

A triumph ? The Chancellor has made huge strides in creating loads of low paid jobs and having a cheap workforce at the disposal of the Tories great creators of wealth, small business. Only trouble is that these small business men are not too keen to pass on any of the cash they are making in decent wages, therefore the governments embarrasingly low tax receipts.

It's excellent news if you have shares in the likes of Sainsbury's where large numbers of their staff have to claim benefit DESPITE WORKING to top up their salaries to a living wage, and shareholders have a captive workforce subsidised by government !

Of course there are some calls for the Living Wage to be introduced which are always followed by the wails of the employers saying that this will cost jobs. So, in a nutshell, if you have worked hard at school,college and uni and got a break in to a reasonable career, hang on to it, you may not get another. This country is firmly a nation of Have's and Have Not's and there is little chance of the line blurring.

Glad you like the Stamp Duty changes, however, they are meaningless to me as I doubt my property will ever get to the threshold to worry about it, and if I ever did, I doubt I could ever afford to move anyway. Still I should not grumble as I have enough to survive on, It's my children and their children I feel sorry for.

 

[beorhthelm]

If it were that those moved out of the unemployment figures were in good jobs being paid a living wage then yes, we would. But as it's due to the millions being on zero hour and part time contracts, the picture isn't as rosy as that statistic suggests.

oh yes, its the wrong sort of jobs isnt it. anyone would think that zero hour and part time work were invented in last couple of years, when many organisation (including public sector and labour councils) have been using them for years.

 

[poidy]

This new stamp duty whilst good for some has absolutely ****ed me. My property was recently valued at £260,000, trying to get a sale at this price on 3% stamp duty would have been hard enough. Getting it on 5% is now virtually impossible. Which means if I ever want to move on im only going to realistically receive £250,000.

In addition to this if at some stage in my life I wish to move up the ladder I will now have to pay £13750 stamp duty on a property worth £275,000. For a £300,000 property make that £15,000.

Looks like I'm staying put then

 

[beorhthelm]

Exactly, buy to letters should be taxed till they decide not to bother anymore.

im wondering who you think should provide rental property. obviously the council for some, but what about the rest? do you prefer large rental companies?

(aside from whats happend to social housing stock which has gone wrong)

 

[beorhthelm]

This new stamp duty whilst good for some has absolutely ****ed me. My property was recently valued at £260,000, trying to get a sale at this price on 3% stamp duty would have been hard enough. Getting it on 5% is now virtually impossible.

methinks you missed the point. its onlt 5% on the 250k + part, 2% on 125k - 250k and nothing on the first 125k. under the old it would have been 3% on the whole. its going to be several grand less now.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This new stamp duty whilst good for some has absolutely ****ed me. My property was recently valued at £260,000, trying to get a sale at this price on 3% stamp duty would have been hard enough. Getting it on 5% is now virtually impossible. Which means if I ever want to move on im only going to realistically receive £250,000.

In addition to this if at some stage in my life I wish to move up the ladder I will now have to pay £13750 stamp duty on a property worth £275,000. For a £300,000 property make that £15,000.

Looks like I'm staying put then

You have misunderstood the new rules - your buyer will now pay less.

 

[Ernest]

im wondering who you think should provide rental property. obviously the council for some, but what about the rest? do you prefer large rental companies?

(aside from whats happend to social housing stock which has gone wrong)

Social housing should be not for profit and provided by the state, if you want an investment then buy some shares

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Social housing should be not for profit and provided by the state, if you want an investment then buy some shares

You haven't answered his question - who is to supply non-social rentals ?