The official Boris pm cluster-fuck thread

[Suspect Device]

5 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Paywalled-what's the summary? 

Not sure why it's not paywalled for me.

Quote

Which is best? 

The buy-to-let property offers the best returns overall in this analysis. The landlord would have made a profit of £54,106 from rent, plus a further £39,079 from the growth in the value of the property. This brings the total profit to £93,185.

Advertisement

 

By contrast, the best stock market scenario would return a profit of just £31,833.

Each of these scenarios looks at profits before tax. Both types of investor will potentially have to pay capital gains tax, as their assets will have risen in value. They will also be liable for income tax on their income, and dividend tax if the shares have paid out to investors.

The stock market investor could protect themselves from the taxman by using an Isa, but the investment would have to be spread over a number of years given the annual allowance is currently £20,000.

Landlords will also be forced to pay stamp duty at three percentage points above the standard rates, should they already own another home. For a property purchase of £190,000 this would mean a £7,000 bill, another cost for landlords to consider.

The best option depends on an individual's approach to investment. Maintaining a buy-to-let property requires significant amounts of time and effort: if something breaks it is the landlord’s responsibility to fix it and the standard of tenant can often be luck of the draw. 

Advertisement

 

Investing in the stock market is a much more hands-off affair, but average returns are subsequently lower.

 

Can't say I agree with their numbers but I have a bias towards stocks because I've done well out of them.

[Aufc]

My understanding of it that is only
Applied to England but Scotland will benefit from it? Is that true? Seems bizarre

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

Not sure why it's not paywalled for me.

 

Can't say I agree with their numbers but I have a bias towards stocks because I've done well out of them.

If those figures are anything like correct they're a fairly good demonstration (not that one was needed) that the tax burden is determined by what will lose least votes. 

3 minutes ago, Aufc said:

My understanding of it that is only
Applied to England but Scotland will benefit from it? Is that true? Seems bizarre

I think the tax rise applies in Scotland and Wales but the spending is ring fenced for England. As long as overall spending increases by the ring fenced amount Scotland should benefit because the Barnet formula allocates Scotland's budget as a % of the overall spend. 

[Aufc]

I think the tax rise applies in Scotland and Wales but the spending is ring fenced for England. As long as overall spending increases by the ring fenced amount Scotland should benefit because the Barnet formula allocates Scotland's budget as a % of the overall spend. 

Ah ok. So I guess it depends on the Barnet formula as to whether Scotland has done well out of this. I saw a figure of £1.1b extra to Scotland. Not sure how much extra the rise would actually result in from scottish taxpayers.

[Suspect Device]

I've got a question re NIC's

Could someone explain the reason why the rate of NIC's falls to 2% on income over £50k?

It's 12% on income between £9.5k and £50k (soon to be 13.25%) but then falls.

[Dawson Park Boy]

36 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

I've got a question re NIC's

Could someone explain the reason why the rate of NIC's falls to 2% on income over £50k?

It's 12% on income between £9.5k and £50k (soon to be 13.25%) but then falls.

Over £50k the employer continues to pay his share,10% but the employee is dealt with by higher rates of tax.

I think that’s correct.

Just shows how enormous tax and NI has become.

We’re now into Corbyn levels of tax. No wonder conservatives are rebelling.

[Salt n Vinegar]

39 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

I've got a question re NIC's

Could someone explain the reason why the rate of NIC's falls to 2% on income over £50k?

It's 12% on income between £9.5k and £50k (soon to be 13.25%) but then falls.

So you are suggesting that a taxation policy which adversely affects the less well paid and has a proportionally smaller impact on higher earners is supported by the present UK Government.  Hmmm. 

It is indeed a puzzle why any Tory could accept such a clearly ridiculous situation.  I'll have a think...

[Suspect Device]

2 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

So you are suggesting that a taxation policy which adversely affects the less well paid and has a proportionally smaller impact on higher earners is supported by the present UK Government.  Hmmm. 

It is indeed a puzzle why any Tory could accept such a clearly ridiculous situation.  I'll have a think...

No. I'm asking why it was like that in the first place.

There must be some kind of reason given. Apart from "f**k the poor"

[Salt n Vinegar]

21 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

No. I'm asking why it was like that in the first place.

There must be some kind of reason given. Apart from "f**k the poor"

It might be that some regard NI as a soft touch.  Income Tax = bad, National Insurance (a more cuddly title) = good.  

As for the reason, well, "f**k the poor" has worked pretty well in creating a hugely unequal society up till now. It ain't broke (from the Tory point of view, anyway) so no need to fix it.  As the Tories have been in government for the vast majority of the last 50-60 years, I would be most surprised if things were much different. I think that since the Tories last won a majority of the Scottish constituencies (1955), by the time the next scheduled election takes place, they'll have been in government for 45 years to Labour's 24, 14 of which arose from elections won by that well known left wing firebrand Tony Blair. 

Next up - watching for a significant increase in the annual allowance for deposit in Shares ISAs... must find away to help the chaps and chums shelter more income from the evil taxman....

Edited September 8, 2021 by Salt n Vinegar

[Soapy FFC]

1 hour ago, Suspect Device said:

I've got a question re NIC's

Could someone explain the reason why the rate of NIC's falls to 2% on income over £50k?

It's 12% on income between £9.5k and £50k (soon to be 13.25%) but then falls.

NI used to be capped at a maximum amount each week, so once you earned above a certain amount you paid no additional NI. Then in a previous budget the NI rate was increased, but the increase applied to everything earned, but the original capped amount remained. GOvts since then have kept the capped element, but made increases to the uncapped element.

[RiG]

Call me cynical but I can't shake the feeling that this is just a tax rise to cover for COVID and Brexit f**k ups dressed up as helping the NHS to manage social care requirements.

Edited September 8, 2021 by RiG

[Salt n Vinegar]

3 hours ago, RiG said:

Call me cynical but I can't shake the feeling that this is just a tax rise to cover for COVID and Brexit f**k ups dressed up as helping the NHS to manage social care requirements.

Just because you might be cynical doesn't mean you can't be correct. 

[coprolite]

From Pitchbook

Over the past decade, PE firms have piled into a sector beset with financial stress brought on by the global financial crisis. Government austerity measures decimated local budgets. Between 2010 and 2018, public spending on adult care fell by £700 million, and the cost of care rose 6.6% from 2015 to last year, according to The King's Fund, a health-care think tank.

Private equity investors sensed the potential for high returns in a traditionally stable sector serving an aging population.

Since 2010, PE firms invested more than £1.7 billion across 64 retirement and nursing homes deals, according to PitchBook data. Today more than 8 in 10 nursing homes in the UK are owned by for-profit operators, according to research by the Institute for Public Policy Research.

[Jeff Venom]

From Pitchbook
Over the past decade, PE firms have piled into a sector beset with financial stress brought on by the global financial crisis. Government austerity measures decimated local budgets. Between 2010 and 2018, public spending on adult care fell by £700 million, and the cost of care rose 6.6% from 2015 to last year, according to The King's Fund, a health-care think tank.

Private equity investors sensed the potential for high returns in a traditionally stable sector serving an aging population.

Since 2010, PE firms invested more than £1.7 billion across 64 retirement and nursing homes deals, according to PitchBook data. Today more than 8 in 10 nursing homes in the UK are owned by for-profit operators, according to research by the Institute for Public Policy Research.

Is this basically saying this NI hike is going straight into private pockets?

[Soapy FFC]

I noticed that Johnson in PMQs said, and I quote

"As I think everybody understood in the long statement yesterday, this is the first time that the state has come in to deal with the threat of these catastrophic costs, thereby enabling the private sector—the financial services industry—to supply the insurance products that people need to guarantee themselves against the cost of care."

So, is this just a way of creating more products and markets for the Tory Party's friends in the financial sector?

[coprolite]

45 minutes ago, Jeff Venom said:

Is this basically saying this NI hike is going straight into private pockets?

Robbing the poor for Lear jets

[NotThePars]

I noticed that Johnson in PMQs said, and I quote
"As I think everybody understood in the long statement yesterday, this is the first time that the state has come in to deal with the threat of these catastrophic costs, thereby enabling the private sector—the financial services industry—to supply the insurance products that people need to guarantee themselves against the cost of care."
So, is this just a way of creating more products and markets for the Tory Party's friends in the financial sector?

Pretty much. It’s why I find people (normally rich celebs) bragging about paying their taxes odd. Obviously I’d rather they did but so much money in this country is just funnelled to Tory Party donors to provide shite services for obscene amounts of money. Legalised corruption.

Anyway, it’s good that we stopped Labour from taxing the true proletariat in this country: people who earn over 80 grand a year.

[Frank Quitely]

1 hour ago, Soapy FFC said:

I noticed that Johnson in PMQs said, and I quote

"As I think everybody understood in the long statement yesterday, this is the first time that the state has come in to deal with the threat of these catastrophic costs, thereby enabling the private sector—the financial services industry—to supply the insurance products that people need to guarantee themselves against the cost of care."

So, is this just a way of creating more products and markets for the Tory Party's friends in the financial sector?

Of course it is, it's the commencement of the full Americanisation of UK health and social care.  Just don't get old or ill and you'll be fine.

[strichener]

8 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

No. I'm asking why it was like that in the first place.

There must be some kind of reason given. Apart from "f**k the poor"

NI used to be a contribution towards care and state pensions.  Although this has long stopped being the case, NI was set to a maximum deduction as people earning larger amounts were entitled to the same state pension as lower contributers.  It was not originally levied as an income tax.  Now though the aims of the national insurance scheme have been lost and it is general income taxation in the same way as income tax but with different thresholds.

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Robbing the poor for Lear jets

I have a lot of sympathy for the poor, but how do I get one of these Lear jets?