Discussion
MarshPhantom said:
Quick look at the MPs map of London shows Labour does best in expensive Central London and The Tories do better in cheaper outer London, where I presume these poor migrants live too
A quick look might. Knowing anything about London, or a slightly longer look, would show that clump stretching from The City & Westminster, Kensington, through Chelsea & Fulham, Putney, Richmond, Wimbledon that is solidly blue.
In other words, the most expensive parts.
Doesn't 16 make sense for many people though?
I left home and started full time work at 16 for a Civil Engineering firm, no doubt many people here have similar stories. You can work, pay tax, get an NI number, own a vehicle, get yourself a house, have a girlfriend or get married, gamble your money away, own a firearm, join the armed forces...do the things ordinary people do.
Not everybody will do all of those things or have that much life experience but nor will many people at 18.
I left home and started full time work at 16 for a Civil Engineering firm, no doubt many people here have similar stories. You can work, pay tax, get an NI number, own a vehicle, get yourself a house, have a girlfriend or get married, gamble your money away, own a firearm, join the armed forces...do the things ordinary people do.
Not everybody will do all of those things or have that much life experience but nor will many people at 18.
speedy_thrills said:
Doesn't 16 make sense for many people though?
I left home and started full time work at 16 for a Civil Engineering firm, no doubt many people here have similar stories. You can work, pay tax, get an NI number, own a vehicle, get yourself a house, have a girlfriend or get married, gamble your money away, own a firearm, join the armed forces...do the things ordinary people do.
Not everybody will do all of those things or have that much life experience but nor will many people at 18.
maybe 16 is fine and maybe its not age we should look at but the ability to understand the different points of view from the different parties.I left home and started full time work at 16 for a Civil Engineering firm, no doubt many people here have similar stories. You can work, pay tax, get an NI number, own a vehicle, get yourself a house, have a girlfriend or get married, gamble your money away, own a firearm, join the armed forces...do the things ordinary people do.
Not everybody will do all of those things or have that much life experience but nor will many people at 18.
Problem with that is how many would be left to vote.
Should we make voting compulsory...I would say yes provided a box is provided for "none of the above".
Nice to hear from all the good landlords who look after their tenants - I seem to remember a few of you posting that long term tenancies were beneficial to landlords, so what's the problem? labour isn't proposing to set the rental price, just restrict price rises within the contract term.
The people this really hits are the agents who are creaming off fees every year, and the landlords who don't treat their tenants well. Do you disagree with
"Penalise rogue landlords by reducing buy-to-let tax relief for those who own hundreds or thousands of properties which don’t meet basic standards."?
..and if it reduces the supply of rental homes - it doesn't reduce the total supply of homes. Many renters want to buy. I'd like to see house prices fall, or at least remain static for the next 20 or 30 years.
The people this really hits are the agents who are creaming off fees every year, and the landlords who don't treat their tenants well. Do you disagree with
"Penalise rogue landlords by reducing buy-to-let tax relief for those who own hundreds or thousands of properties which don’t meet basic standards."?
..and if it reduces the supply of rental homes - it doesn't reduce the total supply of homes. Many renters want to buy. I'd like to see house prices fall, or at least remain static for the next 20 or 30 years.
edh said:
Nice to hear from all the good landlords who look after their tenants - I seem to remember a few of you posting that long term tenancies were beneficial to landlords, so what's the problem? labour isn't proposing to set the rental price, just restrict price rises within the contract term.
The people this really hits are the agents who are creaming off fees every year, and the landlords who don't treat their tenants well. Do you disagree with
"Penalise rogue landlords by reducing buy-to-let tax relief for those who own hundreds or thousands of properties which don’t meet basic standards."?
..and if it reduces the supply of rental homes - it doesn't reduce the total supply of homes. Many renters want to buy. I'd like to see house prices fall, or at least remain static for the next 20 or 30 years.
There are many foreign owners who hold London property as an investment/place to keep money and never let them out. The people this really hits are the agents who are creaming off fees every year, and the landlords who don't treat their tenants well. Do you disagree with
"Penalise rogue landlords by reducing buy-to-let tax relief for those who own hundreds or thousands of properties which don’t meet basic standards."?
..and if it reduces the supply of rental homes - it doesn't reduce the total supply of homes. Many renters want to buy. I'd like to see house prices fall, or at least remain static for the next 20 or 30 years.
It's not impossible UK buyers could take the same approach if letting becomes too much of a pia.
speedy_thrills said:
Doesn't 16 make sense for many people though?
I left home and started full time work at 16 for a Civil Engineering firm, no doubt many people here have similar stories. You can work, pay tax, get an NI number, own a vehicle, get yourself a house, have a girlfriend or get married, gamble your money away, own a firearm, join the armed forces...do the things ordinary people do.
Not everybody will do all of those things or have that much life experience but nor will many people at 18.
Problem is many of those 16-18 year old voters will be complete muppets. Only a few will actually have the smarts to think long term and what is strategically better for the country.I left home and started full time work at 16 for a Civil Engineering firm, no doubt many people here have similar stories. You can work, pay tax, get an NI number, own a vehicle, get yourself a house, have a girlfriend or get married, gamble your money away, own a firearm, join the armed forces...do the things ordinary people do.
Not everybody will do all of those things or have that much life experience but nor will many people at 18.
I say you shouldn't be able to vote until you have a job and are contribution to the UK via tax.
Rather than 'No taxation without representation', as quoted by our dear friends across the pond a while back, it should be the other way round.
Labour would be f
ked then as they'd lose the vote of the feckless and students.Justayellowbadge said:
MarshPhantom said:
Quick look at the MPs map of London shows Labour does best in expensive Central London and The Tories do better in cheaper outer London, where I presume these poor migrants live too
A quick look might. Knowing anything about London, or a slightly longer look, would show that clump stretching from The City & Westminster, Kensington, through Chelsea & Fulham, Putney, Richmond, Wimbledon that is solidly blue.
In other words, the most expensive parts.
Stamp duty exemption for first time buyers up to £300k now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32476194
That sounds like a prime policy to help "hard working family's"
That sounds like a prime policy to help "hard working family's"
Asterix said:
Problem is many of those 16-18 year old voters will be complete muppets.
Being a muppet has changed, you can remain a muppet well into your 50s now 
.Asterix said:
I say you shouldn't be able to vote until you have a job and are contribution to the UK via tax.
Although potentially this would let those under 16 vote while excluding those who do something like run their own business or do unpaid volunteer work after graduating (Doctors who go out to Africa to have a stab at treating ebola with the UN and such).speedy_thrills said:
Asterix said:
Problem is many of those 16-18 year old voters will be complete muppets.
Being a muppet has changed, you can remain a muppet well into your 50s now .Asterix said:
I say you shouldn't be able to vote until you have a job and are contribution to the UK via tax.
Although potentially this would let those under 16 vote while excluding those who do something like run their own business or do unpaid volunteer work after graduating (Doctors who go out to Africa to have a stab at treating ebola with the UN and such).Anyway - what business owners don't pay tax?
speedy_thrills said:
Asterix said:
Anyway - what business owners don't pay tax?
Starbucks and Amazon shareholders?* 
Sorry I was just thinking income tax actually.
- I realise they do pay some tax but have implemented work rounds to avoid most.
Justayellowbadge said:
edh said:
Nice to hear from all the good landlords who look after their tenants - I seem to remember a few of you posting that long term tenancies were beneficial to landlords, so what's the problem? labour isn't proposing to set the rental price, just restrict price rises within the contract term.
The people this really hits are the agents who are creaming off fees every year, and the landlords who don't treat their tenants well. Do you disagree with
"Penalise rogue landlords by reducing buy-to-let tax relief for those who own hundreds or thousands of properties which don’t meet basic standards."?
..and if it reduces the supply of rental homes - it doesn't reduce the total supply of homes. Many renters want to buy. I'd like to see house prices fall, or at least remain static for the next 20 or 30 years.
There are many foreign owners who hold London property as an investment/place to keep money and never let them out. The people this really hits are the agents who are creaming off fees every year, and the landlords who don't treat their tenants well. Do you disagree with
"Penalise rogue landlords by reducing buy-to-let tax relief for those who own hundreds or thousands of properties which don’t meet basic standards."?
..and if it reduces the supply of rental homes - it doesn't reduce the total supply of homes. Many renters want to buy. I'd like to see house prices fall, or at least remain static for the next 20 or 30 years.
It's not impossible UK buyers could take the same approach if letting becomes too much of a pia.
Most landlords need to pay the bank, so leaving it empty isn't an option, particularly if prices stop rising.
Taxing empty houses would be a good incentive.. Foreign owners are parking their cash in a world of low interest rates and instability, but it's not going to stay for ever, and I don't really see it's something to be encouraged.
Justayellowbadge said:
edh said:
Nice to hear from all the good landlords who look after their tenants - I seem to remember a few of you posting that long term tenancies were beneficial to landlords, so what's the problem? labour isn't proposing to set the rental price, just restrict price rises within the contract term.
The people this really hits are the agents who are creaming off fees every year, and the landlords who don't treat their tenants well. Do you disagree with
"Penalise rogue landlords by reducing buy-to-let tax relief for those who own hundreds or thousands of properties which don’t meet basic standards."?
..and if it reduces the supply of rental homes - it doesn't reduce the total supply of homes. Many renters want to buy. I'd like to see house prices fall, or at least remain static for the next 20 or 30 years.
There are many foreign owners who hold London property as an investment/place to keep money and never let them out. The people this really hits are the agents who are creaming off fees every year, and the landlords who don't treat their tenants well. Do you disagree with
"Penalise rogue landlords by reducing buy-to-let tax relief for those who own hundreds or thousands of properties which don’t meet basic standards."?
..and if it reduces the supply of rental homes - it doesn't reduce the total supply of homes. Many renters want to buy. I'd like to see house prices fall, or at least remain static for the next 20 or 30 years.
It's not impossible UK buyers could take the same approach if letting becomes too much of a pia.
The majority, or very few?
edh said:
Nice to hear from all the good landlords who look after their tenants - I seem to remember a few of you posting that long term tenancies were beneficial to landlords, so what's the problem? labour isn't proposing to set the rental price, just restrict price rises within the contract term.
They are proposing capping rent rises and making rental values available to the next tenant. The problem is it won't stop there.Each government is making it more expensive and difficult to be a landlord, both from a legal and compliance perspective. This ultimately costs the renter money.
Adding in rent caps pushes those costs onto the landlord, so the last thing you want to do is be stuck with a tenant for years with less scope to raise rents. especially if there are other changes in the pipeline (punitive taxes, removing loan interest tax relief etc.)
I currently keep my rents low, but having the flexibility to raise them means its at no risk to me. If they cap rent rises then I need to mitigate that risk by moving the rents to market rates.
barryrs said:
Stamp duty exemption for first time buyers up to £300k now - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32476194
That sounds like a prime policy to help "hard working family's"
Well that's great for everyone who lives OUTSIDE London.That sounds like a prime policy to help "hard working family's"
It's not the one-or-so percent stamp duty that's the issue for ordinary people, more the fact that prices need to be at least 40% lower. Does anyone remember which party was in power when house prices rocketed out of the reach of mere mortals, 'cause Miliband appears to have forgotten?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff