buctootim

FT is owned by Pearson, a quoted and listed company.

Fair point about the whole 22m not being for sale, and yes 50,000 new houses is historically low. However your figures from the link were for just for 1 quarter, in a depressed market, not a whole year. In 2007, a more 'normal' year, around 1.6 million homes were sold, so your figure of 118,000 new houses would constitute only about 6.5% of the market. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/oct/21/property-house-prices I assume you directed me to sandalstore because you want to hit me with this http://www.sandalstore.co.uk/-c-11.html?osCsid=176f445114457518c4353ebc09fddcc7

...

There are 22m existing dwellings in the UK, and only around 50,000 new builds each year. With VAT only on new builds there wont be an effect on the overall market. Stamp duty by contrast applies to the whole market.

1. Why are the banks making money at the expense of people who have put away a few quid? The recovery in the banks has taken place alongside a recovery in the stock market. Pension funds have made returns for policyholders of 30% or so in the past 12 months. Only a goon has been holding substantial sums in cash. 2. The whole point of printing money - quantitative easing - is that you create that money. It isnt taken from anybody. So yes- it will be a real £50bn profit, if not more.

I'm also pretty sure that newspapers carry much less influence than they did in the past. Fewer papers are sold and people are much more spin and bull**** aware than they used to be.

Actually Wade has made the better points Wes. Yes VAT is a tax on spending. If you choose not spend and to save instead then no tax is payable AND money is taken out of the economy. That means at a time of a major budget deficit and very weak GDP growth an increase in VAT is exactly the wrong thing to do, and an increase on income tax the better option. The one advantage of increasing VAT is one you havent mentioned - which is basically capturing tax from tourists who spend here but dont pay income tax here. Re fairer taxation. VAT is flat rate. Income tax is not - you have personal allowances and different rates of tax based on income. VAT is the equivalent of charging everyone 17.5% of income regardless of whether they earn £5,000pa or £50m pa.

I dont see why the inheritance tax limit isnt attached to the beneficiary rather than the giver. That way, for example, if £2m is left to a mans 10 children then no tax would be due, but £2m left to one child would attract tax.

If the Governments shares in RBS and Lloyds are sold in three years time UK taxpayer will likely be able to sell the stake for a profit of over £50 billion.

The EU and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area - Canada, US, Mexico) have reciprocal agreements on many areas. That is because both are strong blocs of comparable strength. Anybody who thinks the UK could negotiate similar deals with the EU or NAFTA on its own is very misguided imo.

Agreed. 20% imposed overnight would casue massive market dislocation, but built up to over a period of years it could raise a very large sum without anybody, except land speculators, losing out.

If you want a meritocracy, ie a society which encourages and rewards hard work, achievement and entrpreneurship you should have sky high inheritance tax. Inherited wealth and priviledge is counter to a fair society and productive economy.

I dont disagree. I liked the Common Market but although I can see some advantages in the EU it has a lot of downside too.

'Building land is high because it is a finite product' is such a trite argument. You do know its finite everywhere - and yet land values are different everywhere. Surely it cant be that the prices are determined by what people are prepared to pay rather than supply? The price of new build house are around 10% more than directly comparable 'used' houses. That is the premium people are prepared to pay to have that 'box fresh' appeal. That premium wont change because the LDs put a 20% tax on new houses. People wont suddenly pay 30% more for a new house. New build prices ex tax will fall in line with what the market will bear. The construction costs are pretty fixed, but land values arent.

The EU has huge import tariffs on many goods not originating from within the EU. Leave the club and our exports become liable to these tarriffs, not to mention a whole raft of licences and paperwork. Since the EU is by far our largest trading partner - we would be royally ****ed if we left.

Economically we'd be royally ****ed if we voted to leave. Its not for nothing that so many countries are trying to join.

But the net contribution is a lot less than that - expected to be c£6.7 billion in 2011-2013 because we get money back in various forms of grants - still a lot of money admittedly.

Just like Pompey's administration you havent quite grasped it have you Nick? Land has no set intrinsic value. UK land prices are very inflated because builders compete with each other and drive up the price of plots to the extent their margins are quite small. Put a tax on the price of new houses, the margin between construction costs and sell price will narrow - driving down land values. Builders profits will be unaffected (apart from a writedown on existing land banks).

But Ken Clarke doesnt speak for the leadership. KC is very astute, unlike the tory front bench finacial team.

Brown or Darling (whichever it was) should be given a lot of credit, not just for the bailouts, which were totally essential - the UK economy would have been devastated without them - but for the way in which they were done - taking shares in the banks. In Ireland for example the government took the 'bad bank option' which means the taxpayer is on the hook for a huge % of GDP and the banks are having to sell all overseas assets - including those which generate a profit - which further weakens their capital position.

Actually it wouldnt. The price of houses has got almost nothing to do with the cost of building them and everything to do with what people are prepared to pay. If a new build currently cost £300,000 slapping a 20% tax on them wouldnt push the price up by 20% because no-one would pay the higher figure, they'd buy an exisiting home instead. Currently, on average, about one third of the price of a new build is the actual construction cost and the rest an inflated value for the tiny scrap of land it sits on. A tax would push down land values, no bad thing. A pretty painless way of raising money imo.

The Irish don't need a visa and therefore cant overstay. hth

Britain does healthcare on the cheap. We spend a smaller percentage of GDP on healthcare compared to other similar economies. We can either pay up and do it properly or have a patched together service which is sometimes excellent and sometimes carp.

I dont know what peoples main beef with the EU is. We get all the benefits, fee trade, easy travel, houses in France /Spain etc with very few drawbacks. Most of the bits we didnt like we opt out of - Euro, Schengen agreement etc

Dunno? Aussies?