Just how stupid do the Tories think we are?

“The very essence of Thatcherism was shrinking the state and leaving as much as possible to the markets. I cannot see a possible increase in tax take as being part of that.”

You can’t tax state enterprise, you can tax private enterprise, so Thatcher won twice she grabbed the money from council house sales, then taxed the private landlords that filled the gap.

vegansrock

A lot of London properties are owned by shell companies, usually based somewhere like BVI, so that foreign investors can hide money. Lovely homes lie empty as they increase in value for their investors or money launderers . One sheikh has a £5bn property portfolio in London, most of these homes aren’t lived in. Surely this scandal should be tackled?

I suspect that one reason that this scandal isn't tackled is that the companies which enable these property purchases charge large fees which make a significant contribution to the UK's GDP.

Earlier this year it was reported that Labour plans to clamp down on overseas ownership of UK properties; whether this will remain part of their election manifesto I don't know. I can't see it being popular with the financial industry.

www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/08/labour-considering-higher-taxes-foreign-buyers-uk-homes

In yesterday's Guardian Gordon Brown was suggesting that the countries making windfall profits from oil and gas should be required to pay a windfall tax on them to 'help people in the global south raise people out of poverty, cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the effects of the climate crisis'.

He suggests a tax of 3%. This would require payments of between £2.5billion - £10.3 billion (Saudi Arabia) from the various countries. When one sheikh can have a £5billion property portfolio in London alone, one feels that their countries can well afford it... Brown points out the the Saudi contribution would be less than it's currently spending on buying up football, boxing and golf....

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/25/we-need-trillions-of-dollars-to-fight-the-climate-crisis-this-is-my-plan-to-raise-it

I'm not so sure about the "extracting more taxes" argument because if people have spare money (or can borrow cheaply to make profit), they would invest in something else, which would probably be taxed.

That's the bit I disagree with, growstuff.

An increased tax take might be a consequence of increased privatisation of rented property, but I really can't see it as being deliberate.

The very essence of Thatcherism was shrinking the state and leaving as much as possible to the markets. I cannot see a possible increase in tax take as being part of that.

Particularly when her neoliberal ideology also embraced cutting taxes.

A lot of London properties are owned by shell companies, usually based somewhere like BVI, so that foreign investors can hide money. Lovely homes lie empty as they increase in value for their investors or money launderers . One sheikh has a £5bn property portfolio in London, most of these homes aren’t lived in. Surely this scandal should be tackled?

I'm not so sure about the "extracting more taxes" argument because if people have spare money (or can borrow cheaply to make profit), they would invest in something else, which would probably be taxed. Governments could, if they were so inclined, direct taxes (or offer exemptions) towards behaviours they consider desirable or not.

Successive governments have allowed the situation to continue, so suddenly taxing landlords and reducing the private rental market would be catastrophic. However, making private rentals a less desirable vehicle for investment would take some of the heat out of the house price market. Meanwhile, insisting that all rentals are efficiently heated would at least go some way towards ensuring that all rentals are fit for habitation.

Katie59

“That is what Thatcherism was all about, shrinking 'the state' and leaving it to the market to supply all a citizen's needs. Did this detail pass you by?”

I abhor Thatcherism, the result has been the sale of council houses that hasn’t been replaced by enough social housing and Blair did nothing to change that.

The private rental sector has had to fill the gap and paid tax along the way, this was a deliberate policy of extracting more tax that the private tenants end up paying

The present reality is that the low paid in private rented property have never been worse off, private landlords are not going to provide housing unless is worthwhile, increasingly because of taxation and regulation a lot are questioning that.

So your “market” continues to rise

I don't disagree.

It has also resulted in greater wealth inequality and less investment in business because it's easier and more profitable for people to invest spare cash in property than businesses.

MaizieD

^The private rental sector has had to fill the gap and paid tax along the way, this was a deliberate policy of extracting more tax that the private tenants end up paying^

I don't agree with this premise at all.

We will have to agree to differ.

OK so the result of less social housing has been higher rents and more tax collected from landlords, my view is deliberate Tory policy.

The private rental sector has had to fill the gap and paid tax along the way, this was a deliberate policy of extracting more tax that the private tenants end up paying

I don't agree with this premise at all.

We will have to agree to differ.

“That is what Thatcherism was all about, shrinking 'the state' and leaving it to the market to supply all a citizen's needs. Did this detail pass you by?”

I abhor Thatcherism, the result has been the sale of council houses that hasn’t been replaced by enough social housing and Blair did nothing to change that.

The private rental sector has had to fill the gap and paid tax along the way, this was a deliberate policy of extracting more tax that the private tenants end up paying

The present reality is that the low paid in private rented property have never been worse off, private landlords are not going to provide housing unless is worthwhile, increasingly because of taxation and regulation a lot are questioning that.

So your “market” continues to rise

Katie59

“Providing what? He or she is making money out of the people who rent and treating them as a commodity.

Try comparing the work involved with property rentals with doing a 40 hour week!”

That’s the price we pay for inadequate social housing.
The reason Housing Associations can offer lower rents is because they don’t pay Stamp Duty or Income Tax or CGT

The government could offer more social housing but it would loose all the tax income from private landlords

The government doesn't offer more social housing because it is ideologically opposed to state provision of anything that can be monetised.

That is what Thatcherism was all about, shrinking 'the state' and leaving it to the market to supply all a citizen's needs. Did this detail pass you by?

It really wasn't about extracting tax from private landlords.

“Providing what? He or she is making money out of the people who rent and treating them as a commodity.

Try comparing the work involved with property rentals with doing a 40 hour week!”

That’s the price we pay for inadequate social housing.
The reason Housing Associations can offer lower rents is because they don’t pay Stamp Duty or Income Tax or CGT

The government could offer more social housing but it would loose all the tax income from private landlords

Norah

Katie59

maddyone

Home owners or buyers I should say, pay stamp duty.
In the south it is very difficult to buy a house without paying stamp duty.
You can buy a flat under the level of stamp duty.

Yes, the landlord would pay stamp duty too but if he collected rent of £1000 a month he could easily be paying £4000 every year in tax on that.

Indeed.

Apart from all usual expenses. Not an easy money grab, as some seem to think. The landlord is providing for people who rent.

Providing what? He or she is making money out of the people who rent and treating them as a commodity.

Try comparing the work involved with property rentals with doing a 40 hour week!

Incidentally, there are plenty of loopholes with IHT, even for the not super wealty.

Norah

Callistemon21

Basically, if they put in, as is being mooted, a cut in Inheritance Tax for the 4% of the extremely wealthy who actually pay it

It's not the extremely wealthy
It's anyone without a spouse or partner whose assets are over £325,000 or £500,000 if they leave their house to their children.

With house prices in parts of the country being well over that amount for a fairly modest property, that does not make a person a millionaire and certainly not extremely wealthy.

If only 4% pay it then they must be using loopholes.

Other countries seem to manage their tax affairs better than the UK even without IH.

IHT level is considerably lower than it should be, to be reasonable. My opinion. Taxes have already been paid by the asset owners.

The asset owners don't pay IHT. Why should people who are lucky enough to be the product of property owners benefit? And then have the cheek to claim they've earned what ever they own on merit?

In the case of property, most property owners haven't paid much tax on their asset.

Norah

Callistemon21

Basically, if they put in, as is being mooted, a cut in Inheritance Tax for the 4% of the extremely wealthy who actually pay it

It's not the extremely wealthy
It's anyone without a spouse or partner whose assets are over £325,000 or £500,000 if they leave their house to their children.

With house prices in parts of the country being well over that amount for a fairly modest property, that does not make a person a millionaire and certainly not extremely wealthy.

If only 4% pay it then they must be using loopholes.

Other countries seem to manage their tax affairs better than the UK even without IH.

IHT level is considerably lower than it should be, to be reasonable. My opinion. Taxes have already been paid by the asset owners.

France, if anything, is more extreme in some aspects. As a child free couple we have two choices. We can leave our estate to charity and that will be free of tax, subject to the nature of the charity or we can leave it to nieces and nephews and they have to pay 60%.

Callistemon21

^Basically, if they put in, as is being mooted, a cut in Inheritance Tax for the 4% of the extremely wealthy who actually pay it^

It's not the extremely wealthy
It's anyone without a spouse or partner whose assets are over £325,000 or £500,000 if they leave their house to their children.

With house prices in parts of the country being well over that amount for a fairly modest property, that does not make a person a millionaire and certainly not extremely wealthy.

If only 4% pay it then they must be using loopholes.

Other countries seem to manage their tax affairs better than the UK even without IH.

IHT level is considerably lower than it should be, to be reasonable. My opinion. Taxes have already been paid by the asset owners.

Katie59

maddyone

Home owners or buyers I should say, pay stamp duty.
In the south it is very difficult to buy a house without paying stamp duty.
You can buy a flat under the level of stamp duty.

Yes, the landlord would pay stamp duty too but if he collected rent of £1000 a month he could easily be paying £4000 every year in tax on that.

Indeed.

Apart from all usual expenses. Not an easy money grab, as some seem to think. The landlord is providing for people who rent.

Thanks for the reply Cabowich

Iam64

DAR at 16.44 today, summarising the positives the Blair govt brought to social care
And look at what this lot did to destroy Sure start and la family centres, preventive or supportive work with vulnerable children and families

Sure Start, etc., were just what I was thinking about when describing Labour as more holistic, Iam. They seem to understand that one action prompts other reactions where this recent (soon to be departed?) Government simply don't do joined-up thinking. The latest on HS2 is probably the best example of this.

That said this government are a prime example of extremism; Blair was more centerist. I think a centre-right wing, properly Conservative Party might have some ideas I could agree with

DaisyAnneReturns

Cabowich

DaisyAnnReturns
^Your asking the wrong person when using the word fearful
That’s not me. Im referring to the people who were scared shitless Re covid. And by edicts given out by the government they saw exactly how people will obey.^

Ditto.

I have no idea what this is meant to say, I'm afraid. Were you quoting me? If so could you let me know where I say it, whatever "it" is. There are certainly words that I would not use.

The word "fearful" comes from the OP, if that helps.

Absolutely no idea what this us about.

No, sorry, fairly new at this, so haven't got the hang of all these quotes yet.

I was saying 'me too' in response to Meryl Streep's reply to you.
At least that was the intention.

DAR at 16.44 today, summarising the positives the Blair govt brought to social care
And look at what this lot did to destroy Sure start and la family centres, preventive or supportive work with vulnerable children and families

Katie59

maddyone

Home owners or buyers I should say, pay stamp duty.
In the south it is very difficult to buy a house without paying stamp duty.
You can buy a flat under the level of stamp duty.

Yes, the landlord would pay stamp duty too but if he collected rent of £1000 a month he could easily be paying £4000 every year in tax on that.

So what? It's a business. Why wouldn't he/she pay profit on a business transaction? Incidentally, you appear to have forgotten the permissible expenses. You can find out for yourself what is allowed and how buying/selling at the right times can minimise capital gains tax.

I don't understand your point. If a landlord is renting out property, a profit is being made (unless the landlord is a fool). What justification is there for not paying taxes?

maddyone

daughterofbonniebelle

I recall all the noise Johnson made about addressing social care. It was quite clear it was one of his long list of deceits. It defies logic that he was ever elected. A national disgrace.

I don’t suppose that the country and the world being overwhelmed by dealing with Covid had anything to do with it though.
Nor the financial crisis caused by Covid had anything to do with it either.
Nor the war in Ukraine.
Nor Brexit.
No, nothing to do with it at all.

Remind me, what did the last Labour government do about social care?

I don't think that any of those had much to do with Johnson's failure to address social care.

His world beating plan was published in Sept 2021....

www.gov.uk/government/publications/build-back-better-our-plan-for-health-and-social-care

Brexit was 'done', covid on the wane. Ukraine war on the horizon, but really not a distraction...

Just another of Johnson's lies....

Blair's government brought enormous change to social care with a fundamental restructuring in England.

A Social Care professional body was set up, and social workers got a specialist degree. Many of its service users were lifted out of poverty. Social care was richer as it gained from a 40% real-terms rise in local government funding over the same period.

Many would wish it had done more, but improvements were made. The aims Blair and Brown had, to take children and older people out of poverty, also helped people escape the need for care or moderated their needs. Labour's view has tended to be more holistic, certainly more than this current government's have been.

One change that was definitely "Blairite" was a move towards individual budgets and direct payments. It has become contentious since because of 13 years of gross underfunding. However, it offered people greater agency where care was concerned.

Perhaps you could "remind me" what improvements have happened under this Far-Right, Neo-Liberal government Maddyone? And what happened to Johnson's oven-ready plan for care?