Henry_17

MeBen, How does the 228 compare to the approximate cost of those ingredients, your time, and premium or discount over or under your culinary ability?

Yes, much better as the quiet man.

Loz, The extreme situation we have now where it is common that people of that income should be sitting on gains of that amount has arisen over time due to many factors of which you are aware including inadequate planning, loose monetary policy, and in my view but not yours the tax anomaly under discussion. Agreed that if the anomaly were immediately addressed in the way you describe i.e. aggressively in one swoop, then it would lead to issues as per your example. But it needn't be addressed in such an aggressive manner, rates could be brought in over time, starting at a low level, and perhaps incorporating a degree of taper relief as used to apply in other areas. As long as it were brought in in a measured manner, given it would impact the entire market, it shouldn't lead to major issues. The real reason behind my proposition is not directly to lower prices as you suspect, although lower prices or at least less aggressively booming prices could well be a desirable side effect. The reason behind it, is that it is inequitable for one generation who happen to own homes when they are cheap and when supply and demand is in balance, to enjoy large gains at the expense of a subsequent generation, particularly when those gains have mostly not arisen due to value added activities of their own, but rather mainly due to poor planning policies and as a side effect of loose monetary policy. It is not generation one's fault that they have enjoyed these gains, but it doesn't follow that they should enjoy them tax free, they should be taxed and used in via housing policy to address the inequity between them and generation two.

Loz, Why do you think a capital gains tax on primary residence gains, that applies equally across the market, should make it impossible for people to move house? Particularly one for which the revenue is used to effect better housing policy, policy that for example under the current scenario would by definition include policy and funding to increase supply of housing stock?

The reduction in mortgage interest relief is a welcome step but obviously does not go far enough in that if owner occupiers get zero deductions against income then BTL owners should also get zero. The far greater discrepancy with regard to housing taxation though is capital gains, due to the ludicrous and inequitable private residence relief. Everyone accepts that capital gains should be due on sale of a second property yet for some reason nothing is due on gains on sale of the first. All gains should be taxed, particularly given that the bulk of them arise due to property market inflation not value add, and at least part of the revenue earmarked to effect better housing policy, and probably for the education budget as well.

Hani, What does the ROI acronym stand for in this case?

Lacey

James, While you are there, please ask them when they plan to fix the water pressure for the drinks fountains, the > 50% of bikes that either have broken seat columns or displays, and why on earth they have positioned the squat rack facing the wrong direction.

Protein shake Russian.

Blah, "It's totally hypocritical now to be telling us all that any kind of debt is bad." straw manning much?

Since the introduction by Labour in 2004 of the Payment By Results system private sector outsourcing by the NHS has increased steadily every year. Under the system hospitals may compete for NHS work under regulated tarriffs. The tarriffs are set for various groups of procedures based on average NHS costs to carry them out. They are adjusted annually by NHS staff cost inflation, and crucially are adjusted to require efficiency improvements. Under the Conservative Lib Dem coalition in 2011 this was modified further to benchmark not just to average NHS costs for a particular procedure but to deemed best practice costs. Conceptual debates over whether the private sector can provide better value vs. a theoretical optimally performing NHS are all well and good, but vs. the actual NHS we have the private sector has been winning market share under a regulated system that requires it to offer the service at the same cost and for that cost to inflate at a lower cost than NHS cost inflation given the efficiency requirement. Also under Labour, healthcare spending as a % of GDP increased steadily every year, however at its peak it was still the lowest in the G7 with outcomes broadly equivalent or only slightly worse depending on who you listen to. This demonstrates both that it must be a relatively efficient service but that also total spending may be lower than desirable. Under the Conservative Lib Dem coalition, spending as a % of GDP began to contract although still increased moderately in absolute and real terms. The fiscal constraints following the recession that required this would have been faced by any government at that time, and would still be faced by any government now. In the face of these fiscal constraints, the NHS is set to experience a material uptick in demand for its services due to the UK's demographic profile. Baby Boomers are entering their 70s, and the population of over 75s is expected to increase by 60-70% over the next 20 years. Between the ages of 70-75 the number of times one will require a hospital stay quadruples, the average length of that stay increases by 2.5x, and GP visits double in frequency. The Office for Bugetary Responsibility estimate that spending will have to increase by 3.6% per annum in real terms in order to meet this expected increase in demand, however given the budgetary contraints, that is not going to happen. This makes continued increases in private sector provision highly likely and it also likely that the rate of increase will accelerate. Aside from existing policy that provides for outsourcing by the NHS, more people, when faced with growing waiting lists or when having been told that a given drug is not available on the NHS, will choose to go private directly where they can afford it. The current population is under saved and under insured for this scenario. Over the shorter term monetisation of unproductive housing equity will fund this increase in demand, while over the medium term employees will increasingly value and demand private medical insurance as an employee benefit. Unfortunately this is also likely to increase levels of inequality within the healthcare system, although that doesn't preclude that average and minimum standards also continue to improve somewhat.

Putney. Good one.

BRAWL

That explains why you moved onto Holloway.

Kate, I like how the man in front of peeling egg lady has an "oh not this again" expression.

Chomping on the hidden cardimon pod in a curry is certain to momentarily bring out the worst of my character.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Henry_17 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Green Goose, > > > > What are the benefits of immigration? > > economic??? > > On the economic side, we have seen a massive > spread of "Western Union" outlets where our > immigrants externalise the money they have derived > from wages/benefits etc to their relatives > overseas. This drains money out of the UK > economy.Great economic benefit, eh? > > mobility of labour?? > No big thing! > > Mobility of capital??? > Sure! They export capital from the UK which has a > negative effect on the UK but ends up building > mansions and businesses in Lahore, Ibadan, > Kinshasa, Gdansk, Jakarta, Kassala etc etc. Just > what we need , eh? > > You omitted to mention other contributions like > religious extremism, crime, suburban ghettos, > cultural isolationism, corruption, unwillingness > to assimilate etc etc > > Tell me more about it please. Green Goose, Even though the point regarding Western Union is anecdotal, let's address it: it argues that those immigrants who send the fruits of their low skilled labour back to their home country, back to their relatively impoverished family, are extracting value from the UK, becuase by definition any value leaving the UK must equal pay that was in excess of the value of services rendered. Aside from the point that the argument does not apply to immigrants as a whole given that less than 100% of immigrants repatriate funds, it essentially claims that those immigrants that do repatriate earnings, who are of course on average less advantaged in terms of the environment they were born into than those born here, less literate in English than those born here, have somehow managed to swindle UK Plc into overpaying for the value of their labour. Given the beleif these individuals have taken jobs that were otherwise due to UK born individuals, taken jobs from UK born individuals who are protected by minimum wage legislation and other employment rights, and that on average enjoy these benefits more than immigrants due to the overeprestation of immigrant workers in the black economy, these immigrants must have also managed demonstrate that the minimum wage is set at an economicly inefficient level, a level that is too high. Regarding religious extremism, refusal to assimilate etc. please can you define two well meaning immigrant applicants. One was born into a situation so desperate that despite all the issues you highlight that can be found amongst a minority of other immigrants, we should still let her in despite the risk that she could turn out to be one of those very threatening immigrants, becuase we can't justify that her predicament should be ongoing. The other is born into a situation that is quite desperate, but even though it is literally deciles worse than anything us or our children will ever have to face, we still deny him an escape because of the risk he could be an extremist, or a refusenik with regard to UK culture.

Green Goose, What are the benefits of immigration? economic: mobility, of labour, of capital, how does mainstream economic theory view mobility? MORAL: there are two islands, one is called heaven and the other hell. Should people born on heaven feel morally justified in blocking arrivals of those born in hell because those arrivals dilute their stake in heaven?

Blah, rah, miga, Of course the Tories have constructed a narrative which exaggerates the extent to which the crash was Labour's fault, and exaggerates the extent to which the economy has outperformed under their governing vs. how it would have likely performed under Labour's. As politicians that is their nature. Dont allow this frustrating fact obscure an objective analysis of whether the fiscus would have likely been in materially better shape going into the recession under the Tories, would have likely performed materially worse under a (for the first time democratically) elected Brown led administration following the recession. IMO, most of the points you all raise are reasonable in terms of debunking the narrative, but less so in terms of assessing how much better / worse the downturn could have been. The most common point raised is that the downturn was not caused by labour but by external factors. This is true in the sense that as I'm sure you all appreciate there are myriad causes of any downturn of varying degrees of importance. While we can clearly identify some material factors for which Labour deserve no blame such as loose US monetary policy and inadequate regulation of banks, there are also clearly identifiable factors for which they do, such as Browns overtly political decision to replace RPI with CPi as the BoE's inflation target, severing any link between UK monetary policy and housing costs and therefore admittedly somewhat less directly house prices, after which we saw a fantastic housing boom and horrible crash. Aside from any arguments over who is to blame, there is then the criticism that Labour irresponsibly left the country exposed to the downturn by entering it in a defict position, when the growth years should have been used to "fix the roof" The typical rebuttal to this is to point out how the Tories had pledged to match Labour's spending plans. You must at least entertain the idea that this is a red herring. Politicians say things and then do other things, especially politicians in opposition, especially politicians that have been in opposition for an extended period having unsuccessfully tried various strategies to get relected. As others have said look at what they do not what they say. The relevant history to consideration of the most recent recession of what the Tories would have done is that they oversaw two recessions in their period of governing pre Blair. The first they inherited when Thatcher came in, where they also inherited a large fiscal deficit but nonetheless oversaw a long lasting and high growth recovery following it in which employment increased significantly. The second was following their own period of governing, but unlike the one inherited from Labour they enetered this one in a position of surplus. I am not claiming it is admirable for them to have misrepresnted thier likely spending plans when in opposition, but it remains that it is just much more likely given this track record, given their oft criticised ideological leaning towards smaller government, that they would have been in a more "conservative" when a recession reared its head, as it was always going to do despite Brown claims to have eliminated the economic cycle. Concerning which party would have had the best chance of restoring growth and stability following the downturn, I've already barked about this to miga earlier itt, but in respect of the argument that Labour's and Tories forward looking plans for spending weren't that different, this fails to recognise the more important factor of confidence. The fact is Browns's and therefore Labour's economic credibility was in tatters following proclaimations of having eliminated the business cycle, entering the downturn having missed the opportunity to put the budget in a defensive position. Perhaps it is unfair that perceptions were more harsh than reality, but it is perception not reality that sets the price of gilts, and even with the horrible cuts the economy has had to endure, it has required the sale of a tremendous amount of gilts to achieve even this unenviable position. rah, "Tories sold the family silver at Rock bottom prices" worse to figuratively sell the family silver than to literally have sold the family gold?

James, What would this involve? Is it a purely observational exercise, or does it involve interviewing shopkeepers regarding their corporate structure and sources of funding?

Moon, See Robin's posts above as to why many in the socially liberal economically conservative camp may have become frustrated by the typical accusatory line of thought from certain parts of the of centre left prior to and following the election, which simplistically States "didn't vote labour, want more foodbanks, because me". As Robin explained, even accepting that an administration that isn't left of centre would mean a worse deal for the disadvantaged in society, it is a simplification to paint things in such black and white terms given people may have considered those things alongside their own self interest and those of their family in arriving at their voting decision. However, this view is not just a simplification, but in fact patronising arrogance, because it discounts the possibility that one could have the opinion that society as a whole might be better off, as well as oneself, and as well as the disadvantaged, under a non left of of centre administration.

????, But the manifesto didn't say that they were literally going to "tear it up", which is what we now know from the media coverage, such aggression and zeal in the manner of destruction, I think this is the point of most concern.

Agreed to an extent but the goal posts have now moved from if the economy has grown or not. Anyway, 2m net new jobs are not all low paid, but even if they were and even if them being adding was somewhat fiscally net negative (which I doubt it has been), it is a far preferable scenario to an economy that can't create jobs given the social cost that imposes. Clearly we aren't without significant social issues and a certain amount of unfairness here as we heard just earlier in the thread. But counties in Europe with stubbornly high unemployment have far greater issues. Or look at what has been happening in South Africa over the past month to use a more extreme and less relevant example.

So now an economy is not healthy or balanced if it has redistributive tax policy. The irony. None of the above demonstrates that it has not been growing, while aggregate growth and employment statistics do demonstrate that it has. Are you sure you are approaching this objectively?

Blah, So given that we have established tax receipts have risen, and that the decline you had in mind concerned projections about the future, are you able to "balance" this with 2m jobs having been added?