Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It always amazes me how unwilling people are to pay tax. On anything.

We have an amazing free at the point of use health service. We have other free at the point of use public services.

Why should we not pay tax? Where else would the money come from?

The Tories promised to reduce income tax (and subsequently did) in order to get elected. 

It was all downhill from there, in my opinion. 

Not that I know much about either economics or politics, so do feel free to explain to me the errors in my thinking.

Re people living in big houses after their life situation changes, that saying about criticism and walking in someone else's moccasins springs to mind. At least, it would if I could remember exactly what it was 🤣

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
2 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

Those 5 bedrooms are all tiny ... For context the minimum size for a two man prison cell is 8.5 square metres. 

It's hardly palatial luxury 

Today I learned that living in a 5 bedroom, £2m+ house in Dulwich is basically like being in prison.

Honestly, CPR Dave is the finest-crafted persona on the forum. He never fails to suck people in - I fall for it every time. It's top quality trolling (in the original sense of the word).

From the Subtle Art of Trolling:

troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies"; which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling";, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite.

The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll.

If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.

https://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, Ebenezer said:

"They can move" is basically gentrification in a sentence. 

No, it is punishing people you no longer like or care for, it is 'c;leaning' an area of people you consider undesirable. Forcing people to move house by taxing them for an asset they have already paid for out of taxed income (and remember you will also sweep up purchase tax as well...). Essentially the government is proposing nationalising land, with no compensation. If you have to pay government land rent for your property (which is what a wealth tax is in effect) you no longer own the property. The Government does.

1 hour ago, Sue said:

It always amazes me how unwilling people are to pay tax. On anything.

We have an amazing free at the point of use health service. We have other free at the point of use public services.

Why should we not pay tax? Where else would the money come from?

The Tories promised to reduce income tax (and subsequently did) in order to get elected. 

It was all downhill from there, in my opinion. 

Not that I know much about either economics or politics, so do feel free to explain to me the errors in my thinking.

Re people living in big houses after their life situation changes, that saying about criticism and walking in someone else's moccasins springs to mind. At least, it would if I could remember exactly what it was 🤣

People pay a lot of tax. By 2031, this will be the highest tax paid ever. Coupled with the fact that the amount of debt we have and the amount we pay for that debt is also at an all time high, you can possibly understand why people are against paying more tax

@Cyclemonkey 

I get where you’re coming from, but I just don’t see this fixing anything.. It’ll just make whoever’s living there now a bit poorer, while the real issue gets ignored. In ED over the last 20 years, loads of pretty average terraces have gone up £500k–£1m without anyone doing anything. If we actually want to deal with unearned housing wealth, scrapping the CGT free pass on the main home would make a lot more sense (or at least cap it ...like in many countries)
 

£63,000 in 19698 is equivalent to nearly £1,400,000 today.

Don't forget too that the way mortgages work, you pay almost the same amount in interest as you do for the property. So the actual cost to  buy a £2m house over 25 years is closer to £4m. 

Buying a family home to live in wasn't a get rich quick scheme. 

  • Agree 1
23 minutes ago, Angelina said:

People pay a lot of tax. By 2031, this will be the highest tax paid ever. Coupled with the fact that the amount of debt we have and the amount we pay for that debt is also at an all time high, you can possibly understand why people are against paying more tax

Cost of Covid to government estimated at £400 billion

Cost to the economy of leaving Europe estimated at  £32 billion a year 

Cost  to UK due to Russia invading Ukraine £100 Billion plus

Some analyses suggest that by 2018/19, austerity had suppressed the economy by nearly £100 billion, equivalent to over £3,600 per household, and led to a 2% reduction in GDP by 2015. The long-term effects include a weaker economy, lower wages, and a failure to reduce the fiscal deficit as effectively as intended, partly because lower growth reduced tax revenues

You can do the maths yourself

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

The average house in London was nothing like £68k in the sixties.  I suspect our fictional hard done by ED pensioner probably paid something more like £6k.  Also your interest calculations are  abit dodgy.  Our pensioner did not buy the house for £2m so would not be paying anything like that interest.    As for more recent buyers, I doubt many purchasers of £2m houses are doing so with a 95% mortgage.

@Ebenezer I agree with CGT on primary residences.

There are a few ways to cut this bit the fact remains housing wealth has been  massively undertaxed and it is a growing source of intergenerational inequality.

Edited by Cyclemonkey
6 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

£63,000 in 19698 is equivalent to nearly £1,400,000 today.

Don't forget too that the way mortgages work, you pay almost the same amount in interest as you do for the property. So the actual cost to  buy a £2m house over 25 years is closer to £4m. 

Buying a family home to live in wasn't a get rich quick scheme. 

???

Average London house prices in 1970 (from land registry) = £5190, £72,000 in today's money.

London houses were getting on for 5 times the national average wage in 1970, if we used that as a formula that would be around £200k for an average London house today.  

 

No they are not ordinary houses.  None of the ordinary people I hang around with live in £2m houses.  Many people I work with will never be able to afford any house in London.  Most people's kids will not be able to afford a house, unless fortunate enough for some serious inheritance.

So on your formula a £2m house is around four times the average price of a house across the whole of London.  Back to my 1970s prices, £20k (not £68k) that would be equivalent to £300k based on inflation or £800k based on wages in today's prices.  

 

 

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Cost of Covid to government estimated at £400 billion

Cost to the economy of leaving Europe estimated at  £32 billion a year 

Cost  to UK due to Russia invading Ukraine £100 Billion plus

Some analyses suggest that by 2018/19, austerity had suppressed the economy by nearly £100 billion, equivalent to over £3,600 per household, and led to a 2% reduction in GDP by 2015. The long-term effects include a weaker economy, lower wages, and a failure to reduce the fiscal deficit as effectively as intended, partly because lower growth reduced tax revenues

You can do the maths yourself

Thank you, Malumbu.

I was going to say something similar, but I didn't have the figures.

For folks who are trapped in £2M houses that they just simply can't move away from and see themselves as asset rich but cash poor as they bought it for a small fraction of the current value back in the 80's or whenever, how about this: House inflation in the UK is currently 2.6% pa* - that equates to £52,000 per year gain on the asset. Don't worry at all about the money you've earned to date by just simply living in your own house, but from this point you could realise (borrow against) that whopping £52,000 a year that the property is going up by, and cover this new tax amply.

*yes I'm aware London is dragging compared to national figures here, but family homes in London are outperforming smaller properties, and that has certainly not always been the case.

 

The new tax will go up annually by the rate of CPI which is a lot more than 2.6% under this government.

but the threshold is not going to be increased by inflation. So soon enough a lot more of you people will be living in mansions that are subject to this tax.

  • Agree 2
10 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

but the threshold is not going to be increased by inflation. So soon enough a lot more of you people will be living in mansions that are subject to this tax

Certainly the threshold won't be increased, but, additionally, once the position is accepted that central government can impose a rental, for no return, on property you might expect it to be widened. Remember Council tax, also a tax on property, is in exchange for the services we get from our local council, but this property tax is in exchange for nothing. Indeed those hit by this tax are amongst the relatively few people, in general, who are net contributers to national income, as opposed to net benefitters.

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, Sue said:

It always amazes me how unwilling people are to pay tax. On anything.

We have an amazing free at the point of use health service. We have other free at the point of use public services.

There was an interesting chat about this on the budget The Rest Is Politics and they highlighted a challenge that taxation levels are now getting to Scandinavian levels yet our public services are nowhere near as good as theirs and the government is pouring money in to, for example, the NHS but people aren't seeing the improvement as (the politically dreaded) productivity is actually going down. They cited 20% to 30% more investments in nurses etc yet productivity is at around 7.8%.

This is a big challenge for the government because if people don't feel the difference or feel they are getting good value for money they will turn on them very quickly.

Just had fun on RightMoves - luckily everything on my street is sub £2mm so if the valuation method is recent trading multiples then we'll all be OK...for now.

 

The new tax law might create an artificial resistance point at the £2mm level where natural inflation will not bring a certain population of houses over the threshold.

 

If I had unlimited funds this place would be AMAZING!! https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/162706352?utm_campaign=property-details&utm_content=buying&utm_medium=sharing&utm_source=copytoclipboard#/&channel=RES_BUY

Total 1-off that obvs pre-dates the other houses around it. 

  • Agree 1
1 hour ago, malumbu said:

This thead smacks of "I hate Labour", similarly recent posts on the Khan thread, for some of you.  

I was just reading a load of lovely posts on Facebook from people saying they were happy to pay more tax if it went towards things like taking more children out of poverty.

Heartwarming.

  • Like 3
4 hours ago, van dessel said:

Just had fun on RightMoves - luckily everything on my street is sub £2mm so if the valuation method is recent trading multiples then we'll all be OK...for now.

 

The new tax law might create an artificial resistance point at the £2mm level where natural inflation will not bring a certain population of houses over the threshold.

 

If I had unlimited funds this place would be AMAZING!! https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/162706352?utm_campaign=property-details&utm_content=buying&utm_medium=sharing&utm_source=copytoclipboard#/&channel=RES_BUY

Total 1-off that obvs pre-dates the other houses around it. 

Thanks for posting this, I've always been intrieged by that house having glimpsed it passing by..It truly is the dream

Edited by NewWave
  • Thanks 1

And accommodation for servants too.   Grouse shooting?  Sorry, it's easy to take the Michael.  I've been peering at a hole in the ground on Woodhall Drive a private road in West Dulwich.  There used to be a £2million house there but expect something far grander.  Although it's been a big hole for some time now.  I have a legit reason to be on that road and always wave to the CCTV.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...