Child benefit to be scrapped for higher rate taxpayers

[TheAnimus]

The landowners and industrialists, been correct about a crash about a currency wars about the biflation about the loss of lifestyle, lower wages in the west, destruction of the lower middle and working class, etc..

Biflation is a term many economists don't use, its contradictory in its nature and I think even the wikipedia page is slated for deletion.

I'm guessing your suggesting that the landowners and millowners saw a currency slump coming?

Then something about loss of lifestyle, for the vast majority in england this has got better, shorter hours, more evenly distrabuted pay. This isn't directly due to any government interference but by driving forces of market demand. You could argue that those have been improved by governments but normally not intentionally!

They dont want to lower house prices they prefer to destroy the living standards of many, to keep this over inflated property market going.

House prices are set by supply and demand. Try not to think of it as this house is worth x mars bars, it is disingenious to think that way. Prices are high because there are not enough houses. This is because getting a house built is risky, expensive and time consuming.

People don't want more houses round them. I like living in zone 3/4 London because we have green spaces all around us. So I guess I'm guilty of that too.

We also tend to live on our own more and in smaller groups. After uni I decided I wanted to live on my own, and I'm doing it again now. This pushes up the demand for the limited supply. Again I'm guilty of that I suppose.

Look at the BOE low interest rates they arnt their for you but for investment houses like banks to make their lost money back from you, i have no confidence in the BOE nor do i have in this government, we always have spineless governments for working people issues but for their own they are prepared to fight.

Oh dear. No. Rates were part of the greenspan puts.

These provided liquidity, ment people had money to invest in new projects. This in turn we have seen historically creates jobs.

The downside is when you have a constrained supply of some commodity, increasing demand and increasing liquidity you get inflation. This is the problem with the housing market.

Having the protection of cheap lending allows a business to take more risk. Often its their un-willingness to take risk which constrains growth, it is also the primary driving factor in the credit crunch. There is a phrase of using a put to protect. Well greenspans long term cheap lending certainly made many people think they had more protection than they did, hence why when it dried up so quickly, it was akin to going from 600mph to 6mph in the space of a few yards.

One example the CGT it doesnt affect 80% of the population only the top 20% yet they sold it that it would hurt everyone? now it was 40% for a very long time no one complained then they dropped it to 18% thats the biggest drop ive seen in a tax payment, you had the rich spamming papers about how unfair it would be if it went up to 40%.

No this is about trying to bring back liquidity.

Now theres talk abotu a centralised benefits system? i guess it'll go to a tory own companies and to tory mates, just like the nhs went to to labour mps companies and their mates, and can't wait till they cocjk this up.

Completely agree, the civil service can't project manage a pissup in a brewery.

The most cuts come from the lower class, while the rich had hardly any cuts, yet they were teh ones that profited from the last 13 years, so they should be the ones that pay the most, but we can't have that can we

Yes and No.

So far the lower income people

(quick asside, class is stupid, taxation is blind to that, is my sister who has never earnt more than the bottom quartile of people in britan lower class? She is even better educated than I who earn comfortably inside the upper quartile? lets leave the cast system out of this, it doesn't really exist in any significant way when looking at progressive taxation).

Anyway, for the lower income, we've seen personal allowances rise!

I'm all in favour of this, whilst labour where out screwing people with NI rises, because most of their voters just don't understand em, the libcons (mostly libs) have raised that to 10k over the next years.

No new taxes have been put on them. Meanwhile 44k+, looses £80 a week.

Looks like they are taking it from the upper earners to me.

None of you have an idea about these people, the dukes etc.. are the most fake individuels on this planet i know because i've seen it, they really hate the working/ low middle class, but they are good at putting on this image of goodness.

And so what, they might account for 0.001% of the population?

[TheAnimus]

Don't forget the gain is only paid on the difference between what it is bought + costs and sale price - costs, a house in default probably will not have any gains, and if it did would be able to fully replay the load, as now we don't do loans more than 100% of property value.

A 5% gains tax on a 200,000 property that has increased in value by 20% is £2000 (less infact when you take into account costs), this is not like stamp duty that is payable on the total value of the house.

Collection would be easy, at the moment stamp duty is collected (normally by lawyers) when the land registry changes take place, there is no reason why a gains tax could not be collected in exactly the same way.

If its difference, then it would not be easy, I was assuming you were talking about a simple appreciation tax.

This one would be as hard to enforce as CGT is for the more complex things already. I mean there are excemptions for wine and stuff! Simplify this whole thing please.

[oolon]

Why do you think it is not easy? The land registry has recorded what price every house is sold for, I went on rightmove and saw my house details when it bought it 10 years ago all in black and white, even down to my house number, all publicly available information kind of surprised it was not more anonymous. The land registry is required to be told about every change of ownership of property. Major cost on the buy side is stamp duty, easy to calculate and offset again, put in a flat and generous £2000 for lawyers fees, and your laughing. The land registry would collect the fees, if the seller did not pay, they would not release the property to the buyer.

[TheAnimus]

land registry only lists the price of the building.

What about flat mates? What if there were massive costs involved, such as adding a new kitchen, bathroom and an indoor swimming pool?

[oolon]

Flat mates are easy its easy equal shares or what is put on the deeds. If there are massive costs, it would be up to the home owner to shows these when above and beyond. If they are just maintenance, things get old and need replacing, then they don't count. I think you would have to have a survey to prove, the change in nature.

However this is getting a bit OT, so I think we should stop here, I do (now) understand your point and can see how it could get complex, however they do it with second houses, so its not impossible.

Bit annoyed about the Child benefit changes as I will be wammied twice, lose of the benefit and not married. Myself and my partner have been together longer than most married couples who are our peers, so I find it annoying to be told our commitment counts for less, personally I think its stronger as we don't "have" to be together.

[Blitzen]

£44k might sound like a lot of money to most northerner/non-londoners... but it's not a lot of money down here... remember our mortgages are up to triple the size of yours...

Exactly.
My mortgage + council tax vomes to well over £1700pm. Before anyone asks, i am not extravagent in my spending either.
A normal 3 bedroom semi here costs £230K+

I am admitting that i earn more than enough though to cover my family, and a 'government handout' is a nice thing rather than a neccessary evil.
Unfortunately though, what i CANNOT STOMACH, is some fat lazy tart with a tribe of kids, each one having an uncle for every day of the week, poncing my hard earned taxes away so she can keep herself in chips, fags and white lightening!

[Rob_B]

Exactly.
My mortgage + council tax vomes to well over £1700pm. Before anyone asks, i am not extravagent in my spending either.
A normal 3 bedroom semi here costs £230K+

Ouch

You must earn a ton, will you be my friend?

[petercook7]

Biflation is a term many economists don't use, its contradictory in its nature and I think even the wikipedia page is slated for deletion.


And so what, they might account for 0.001% of the population?

but how much wealth and land do they own?

[TheAnimus]

Not that much, look at a copy of the times rich list and you see that very few of the useless aristorcracy kept their dosh, most had to sell up lots of their assets.

The Crown I've heard owns about as much land as a small county, but the vast majority of this is 'protected'. By this I mean no one can build on it anyway.

The problem comes that we don't invest in proper infrastructure. Take London, there is a massive fall off in prices if your an hour away by train. A few high speed services would solve this one?

I still do not understand thou how a very few land owners are effecting the price, are they constraining the supply?

The thing is social housing is a grave injustice that it should be required, effectively it means people are been paid to little to live somewhere that is too expensive. It is too expensive because of a lack of supply and too much demand. So either make demand less, this is quite hard as people complain if they demand say 50% LTV for a mortgage, or make more houses available. Build on the green belts, build new towns with very good facilities and transport infrastructure etc.

[WillUK]

I think this is going to increase the proverty level in the uk and its bad idea in my opinion

[TheAnimus]

I think this is going to increase the proverty level in the uk and its bad idea in my opinion

Assuming you mean poverty, not property (hey I'm dislexic!)

I can't understand.

So, nicking a peice of info verbatum from wikiwaky, I think its true:

Poverty is defined by the Government as ‘household income below 60 percent of median income’

So someone who is in the top rate tax, is going to be below the 60% of the median?

No, No they are not. Not at all, not near. No.

Less FUD in this thread and a little bit of tought and maths an 11 year old should be able to do would be an idea.

[oolon]

Less FUD in this thread and a little bit of tought and maths an 11 year old should be able to do would be an idea.

Don't worry, 14 more posts and we will never see them again.

[petercook7]

Biflation is a term many economists don't use, its contradictory in its nature and I think even the wikipedia page is slated for deletion.

sorry what i meant was i saw the currency issue and the bust of aug 2007, biflation is here, its both inflation and deflation in the system.
You have the CPI which is a pile of poop, then you have the BOE not sticking to their dutied of keeping the level of cpi around 2%, they are making the people poorer by extending their payments on their debt, reducing wages while everydayitems become more expensive,by making savers spend while allowing the banks to rebuild their vaults with your hard earn money, very clever way of stealing with out you knowing about it.

Now you have QE being pumped in, and the government spending being pump down, ie reduction in benefits for all, to keep inflation in check. so the billions pumped in will be counter acted by the billions reduced in benefits and a posible change in tax bands towards the lower ends.
So in effect you are paying for the QE with government cuts. your money is being stolen to pay for the banks and people that caused those mistakes.

[TheAnimus]

I was been polite. Biflation is nonsense, complete and utter. if you think something is both inflating and deflating at the same time, you don't understand these terms. Its not possible to be growing and shrinking overall.

Now the price of a commodity is set by how much someone can afford, we've seen inflation because of available credit, which in turn drives up the rates at which you can charge someone to borrow, which drives up available credit when central rates are low, which drives up prices making people want to borrow more to buy in the manner they are acustomed.

The indicators under dear old browns leadership where ignored in a way we've never seen before by most in the markets. Inlcuding an MP3 player in the basket of goods! Thats a great way to keep inflation low.

The problem was the government was also spending money like there was no tomorrow, lets not forget that inflation is almost certainly going to happen if you bring more people out of poverty and all those other worthy objectives.

[Saracen]

I was been polite. Biflation is nonsense, complete and utter. if you think something is both inflating and deflating at the same time, you don't understand these terms. Its not possible to be growing and shrinking overall.

Now the price of a commodity is set by how much someone can afford, we've seen inflation because of available credit, which in turn drives up the rates at which you can charge someone to borrow, which drives up available credit when central rates are low, which drives up prices making people want to borrow more to buy in the manner they are acustomed.....

Or, could be you don't understand the terms. Biflation doesn't refer to inflation and deflation of the same thing at the same time - it refers to opposing influences of differing factors on differing asset classes within the same economy. As originally coined, it refers to the inflationary effect of priming the economy with monetarist QE, driving up commodity-based prices because of the extra money in circulation, with the simultaneous fall in the value of debt-based assets .... like housing.

If there's one thing any economist learns early on, it's that the economy is complicated as hell and therefore very difficult to model with any accuracy and consistency. Partly, it's because there are always pressures acting in differing directions at the same time. The term biflation really just refers to a set of conditions on the economy where there are significant inflationary and deflationary pressures acting on different types of assets at the same time, and while definitions vary, the most commonly accepted one is that outlined above, of inflationary pressures on some things from central banks injecting vast sums into the money supply (like Brown did, like the US and many other major economies did), while simultaneously having deflation in debt-based assets, perhaps due to credit contractions of confidence issues.

There are always competing pressures in the economy. Thousands of them. It's what makes econometrics so flipping tricky.This really merely seeks to put a convenient handle on a particular combination. What it is not is the assertion that "something" is both growing and shrinking at the same time. It's a bit like stagflation, in that economists used to say inflation and recession couldn't happen at the same time ... until it happened. So they invented a term for it.

An analogy for you - the tyres on your car. One has a puncture, and so is shrinking, while you've an air-pump on another. One is going up, one down, but they're both on the same car (economy). Obviously, that analogy is only going to hold so far, so pushing it isn't worth doing, but I'm sure you get the point.

[TheAnimus]

No this is the difference between macro and micro analysis.

when you're looking at a micro level, certain areas are contracting.

but if overall its expanding, then its expanding.

If its in perfect balance, but somehow oscilatory then that is the only time the term could make logical sense.

It would be hard to think of a time in history when all micro indicators have been in alignment. I want to say impossible, but it might have been. As such if you allowed this term, it would always be used.

You have specail terms for when certain underlyings are running in a manner uncorrelated to the average. Use these.

The article describes what could be considered an effect of purchasing giffin goods. That is to say staples become more expensive, meaning people can't afford the more luxiorous items, so have to buy more staple goods, thus creating a vicious spiral.

Whilst the wikiwacky is not the best source as an authority, it is quite rational that the term be slated for deletion. (no it wasn't me who pushed it as such