Bye bye Starmer

[ZedLeg]

It’s because large scale landlords are delusional about their place in society.

My landlord recently described himself as an average bloke and told me he owns 105 properties in the same sentence.

[Simon]

No, the Tories cut CGT on property from 28% to 24%. I can see that going back up.

[V8Granite]

It’s because large scale landlords are delusional about their place in society.

My landlord recently described himself as an average bloke and told me he owns 105 properties in the same sentence.

Scarily, we collect the keys for the place we bought and he made a big point about how the rent in the area has gone up and the renter is due a rate rise. Which is quite a shitty way to do business as they are butthurt they haven’t been involved in the new rental and are trying to make a point.

Shit for landlords, shit for tenants, all shit.

Dave!

[Swervin_Mervin]

i don’t get why there’s any confusion. the manifesto was pretty clear. Public services are shit and need lots of money. it won’t come from income tax, NI or VAT (ie. the typical taxes directly on people who earn money from traditional paid work).

where did people think it was going to come from then? it was spelt out pretty clearly - if it’s not coming from those taxes then it’s going to come from other sources like wealth.

bored of everyone playing dumb and trying to needle every definition of every word to try and find fault.

Well, it will won't it. Fiscal drag takes care of that, whilst ensuring politicians can trot out the line that they haven't raised income tax.

I've no issue with paying more tax - as long as I see some results. But I won't, and most people I'd guess feel exactly the same way. And that is where the dissatisfaction comes from.

6 days in Stockholm has only served to amplify my jadedness at it all.

[Jobbo]

No, the Tories cut CGT on property from 28% to 24%. I can see that going back up.

Perhaps - I don't think that'll make a massive difference to transactions and if anything will encourage landlords not to sell. But selling your income-producing asset is usually an exit strategy; I'm referring to the fact that they probably won't raise tax rates on income from property because they're already the same as earned income. A one-off CGT receipt which is 20% more isn't going to plug a systemic hole in the budget.

[Mito Man]

Wasn’t there a study saying raising CGT by more than 2% will decrease takings.
So like most taxes it’s on the limit.

[V8Granite]

No, the Tories cut CGT on property from 28% to 24%. I can see that going back up.

Perhaps - I don't think that'll make a massive difference to transactions and if anything will encourage landlords not to sell. But selling your income-producing asset is usually an exit strategy; I'm referring to the fact that they probably won't raise tax rates on income from property because they're already the same as earned income. A one-off CGT receipt which is 20% more isn't going to plug a systemic hole in the budget.

Going by Woodcock who do property management, loads of people are selling but don’t know if that’s just them being all woe is me etc. we had a lot of pressure to exchange by the end of October.

Dave!

[Gavster]

The argument that "they're not fixing anything" is ignorant of the fact that fixing things in government takes a long time. Also it should be obvious that you can't spend money to fix services until you have the funds to do so. And getting bills through parliament also takes a long time. That's why they will go in hard with the budget tomorrow, if they stand any hope of seeing positive outcomes before the next election. And sadly, there will always be trade-offs where some people suffer from changes. It's almost impossible to avoid, the best we can hope is to minimise those trade-offs for positive change.

The next big question is whether Starmer stands by his word and takes action on the Lords obesity report yesterday. It largely looks at protecting kids from high fat, salt and sugar processed foods via bans on advertising, bans on cartoon characters, age limit on energy drinks, get rid of multibuys on junk food, promotion of breakfast clubs and free school meals, nutrition and procurement standards, as well as focusing on the food environment such as making high streets healthier places to be via town planning regulations.

[Gavster]

No, the Tories cut CGT on property from 28% to 24%. I can see that going back up.

Perhaps - I don't think that'll make a massive difference to transactions and if anything will encourage landlords not to sell. But selling your income-producing asset is usually an exit strategy; I'm referring to the fact that they probably won't raise tax rates on income from property because they're already the same as earned income. A one-off CGT receipt which is 20% more isn't going to plug a systemic hole in the budget.

Going by Woodcock who do property management, loads of people are selling but don’t know if that’s just them being all woe is me etc. we had a lot of pressure to exchange by the end of October.

Dave!

A lot of landlords are selling, especially if they've got a lot of borrowing. But even then it seems like the bountiful days of being a landlord are gone. There's a guy around the corner whose father built up a massive portfolio of property in east London during the 80s when little victorian cottages were about 50p each. He's been steadily getting rid of them over the last few years and moving into commercial property instead because he said the money in residential simply isn't the same as it used to be. Combined with increased renters rights it makes sense to get out.

[Jobbo]

No, the Tories cut CGT on property from 28% to 24%. I can see that going back up.

Perhaps - I don't think that'll make a massive difference to transactions and if anything will encourage landlords not to sell. But selling your income-producing asset is usually an exit strategy; I'm referring to the fact that they probably won't raise tax rates on income from property because they're already the same as earned income. A one-off CGT receipt which is 20% more isn't going to plug a systemic hole in the budget.

Going by Woodcock who do property management, loads of people are selling but don’t know if that’s just them being all woe is me etc. we had a lot of pressure to exchange by the end of October.

Dave!

A lot of people are doing a lot of things before the budget. Which will probably give a decent tax receipt for the Chancellor but is a one-off because they are transactions which have been brought forward to avoid being hammered.

[ZedLeg]

The argument that "they're not fixing anything" is ignorant of the fact that fixing things in government takes a long time. Also it should be obvious that you can't spend money to fix services until you have the funds to do so. And getting bills through parliament also takes a long time. That's why they will go in hard with the budget tomorrow, if they stand any hope of seeing positive outcomes before the next election. And sadly, there will always be trade-offs where some people suffer from changes. It's almost impossible to avoid, the best we can hope is to minimise those trade-offs for positive change.

The next big question is whether Starmer stands by his word and takes action on the Lords obesity report yesterday. It largely looks at protecting kids from high fat, salt and sugar processed foods via bans on advertising, bans on cartoon characters, age limit on energy drinks, get rid of multibuys on junk food, promotion of breakfast clubs and free school meals, nutrition and procurement standards, as well as focusing on the food environment such as making high streets healthier places to be via town planning regulations.

I think we might be watching different governments tbh

[Swervin_Mervin]

The argument that "they're not fixing anything" is ignorant of the fact that fixing things in government takes a long time. Also it should be obvious that you can't spend money to fix services until you have the funds to do so. And getting bills through parliament also takes a long time. That's why they will go in hard with the budget tomorrow, if they stand any hope of seeing positive outcomes before the next election. And sadly, there will always be trade-offs where some people suffer from changes. It's almost impossible to avoid, the best we can hope is to minimise those trade-offs for positive change.

The next big question is whether Starmer stands by his word and takes action on the Lords obesity report yesterday. It largely looks at protecting kids from high fat, salt and sugar processed foods via bans on advertising, bans on cartoon characters, age limit on energy drinks, get rid of multibuys on junk food, promotion of breakfast clubs and free school meals, nutrition and procurement standards, as well as focusing on the food environment such as making high streets healthier places to be via town planning regulations.

On the basis that our crumbling infrastructure hasn't improved in the last 20-25 years, and arguably has deteriorated even more rapidly, why would I suddenly think that this Govt' - that so far has given off the same whiff of being one that will simply tinker around the edges - will be the one that changes that?

But let's come back to this around the time of the next election shall we?

[Jobbo]

The argument that "they're not fixing anything" is ignorant of the fact that fixing things in government takes a long time. Also it should be obvious that you can't spend money to fix services until you have the funds to do so. And getting bills through parliament also takes a long time. That's why they will go in hard with the budget tomorrow, if they stand any hope of seeing positive outcomes before the next election. And sadly, there will always be trade-offs where some people suffer from changes. It's almost impossible to avoid, the best we can hope is to minimise those trade-offs for positive change.

The next big question is whether Starmer stands by his word and takes action on the Lords obesity report yesterday. It largely looks at protecting kids from high fat, salt and sugar processed foods via bans on advertising, bans on cartoon characters, age limit on energy drinks, get rid of multibuys on junk food, promotion of breakfast clubs and free school meals, nutrition and procurement standards, as well as focusing on the food environment such as making high streets healthier places to be via town planning regulations.

On the basis that our crumbling infrastructure hasn't improved in the last 20-25 years, and arguably has deteriorated even more rapidly, why would I suddenly think that this Govt' - that so far has given off the same whiff of being one that will simply tinker around the edges - will be the one that changes that?

But let's come back to this around the time of the next election shall we?

On the basis that our infrastructure has been crumbling for 20-25 years, what makes you think a change of government would fix it in less than 6 months? They're setting out their stall to start the process tomorrow.

[ZedLeg]

I would’ve liked to have seen them at least lay out some plans for infrastructure renovations tbh.

They still give the impression of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing and ministers just doing what they want/think is right.

[Swervin_Mervin]

The argument that "they're not fixing anything" is ignorant of the fact that fixing things in government takes a long time. Also it should be obvious that you can't spend money to fix services until you have the funds to do so. And getting bills through parliament also takes a long time. That's why they will go in hard with the budget tomorrow, if they stand any hope of seeing positive outcomes before the next election. And sadly, there will always be trade-offs where some people suffer from changes. It's almost impossible to avoid, the best we can hope is to minimise those trade-offs for positive change.

The next big question is whether Starmer stands by his word and takes action on the Lords obesity report yesterday. It largely looks at protecting kids from high fat, salt and sugar processed foods via bans on advertising, bans on cartoon characters, age limit on energy drinks, get rid of multibuys on junk food, promotion of breakfast clubs and free school meals, nutrition and procurement standards, as well as focusing on the food environment such as making high streets healthier places to be via town planning regulations.

On the basis that our crumbling infrastructure hasn't improved in the last 20-25 years, and arguably has deteriorated even more rapidly, why would I suddenly think that this Govt' - that so far has given off the same whiff of being one that will simply tinker around the edges - will be the one that changes that?

But let's come back to this around the time of the next election shall we?

On the basis that our infrastructure has been crumbling for 20-25 years, what makes you think a change of government would fix it in less than 6 months? They're setting out their stall to start the process tomorrow.

Where did I say that I expected it to be fixed in 6mo? All I have said is that any extra money will fall into the abyss and nothing will change.

We can only measure either position in due course.

[Jobbo]

It's been nearly 6 months since the election - it sounded like you expected something?

[dinny_g]

They still give the impression of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing

There's a lot of that about at the moment.

On the one hand, increase efforts to make housing stock available for people to buy, thus saving them from the challenges of the rental market.

and on the other hand, through the FCA, make it significantly more difficult to get a loan by reducing the responsibility of the consumer to understand what they are undertaking and placing this additional responsibility on the Lenders. Oh and retrospectively fine lenders for doing something you said was absolutely fine and within your rules at the time...

[ZedLeg]

I’m not going to argue against more legislation on mortgages tbh.

It’s not been long enough since the subprime crash to forget the lessons.

[Gavster]

The argument that "they're not fixing anything" is ignorant of the fact that fixing things in government takes a long time. Also it should be obvious that you can't spend money to fix services until you have the funds to do so. And getting bills through parliament also takes a long time. That's why they will go in hard with the budget tomorrow, if they stand any hope of seeing positive outcomes before the next election. And sadly, there will always be trade-offs where some people suffer from changes. It's almost impossible to avoid, the best we can hope is to minimise those trade-offs for positive change.

The next big question is whether Starmer stands by his word and takes action on the Lords obesity report yesterday. It largely looks at protecting kids from high fat, salt and sugar processed foods via bans on advertising, bans on cartoon characters, age limit on energy drinks, get rid of multibuys on junk food, promotion of breakfast clubs and free school meals, nutrition and procurement standards, as well as focusing on the food environment such as making high streets healthier places to be via town planning regulations.

On the basis that our crumbling infrastructure hasn't improved in the last 20-25 years, and arguably has deteriorated even more rapidly, why would I suddenly think that this Govt' - that so far has given off the same whiff of being one that will simply tinker around the edges - will be the one that changes that?

But let's come back to this around the time of the next election shall we?

The stuff I'd like to see will take 10-20 years to come to fruition. E.g. universal free school meals which are delivered to high nutritionial standards and the food is sourced using new public procurement guidelines that support local & healthy food sourcing. It should be a no-brainer and is proven to have significant positive impact on GDP and massive ROI. Feeding 10 year-olds a healthy diet will only show a positive return in a decade or two though. And while we're at it, do the same for prisons and the NHS. All of those will benefit from it, yet none of them will show any kind of real impact by the next election, which is most likely the main reason why no government bothers with it.

[Gavster]

It's like the previous labour government's teenage pregnancy strategy. We were top of Europe for teenage pregnancies in the late nineties. Five years after the strategy started, there was only a minimal reduction in teenage pregnancy. Fifteen years later and the teenage pregnancy rate dropped 50%. It was a massive win for a successful policy that only showed the results after four more general elections.