In the news

Nice one Blackford.

Cake is presumably being served in the canteen

https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1488184464861798401

'Scotland Yard just said they've been handed more than 300 photographs as part of their partygate probe.'

Indeed, he was properly red faced angry

Amusingly his own party leader misled the Scot parliament. His ire seems to be quite inadvertantly selective.

Not getting into that

Obviously I am biased as a 30 yo professional who can't afford a mouldy 1 bed

I feel ya

Apologies for the whataboutery but Blackford's rehearsed strop is worthy of an Oscar...

Looks like Boris survives to fight another day. Starmer was crap today. Rehearsed compassion and outrage.

Can anyone confirm is Nadine Dorries an actual person or a Jennifer Saunders character?

Fucking hell, Met immediately drops investigation into 4 parties right after the report comes out? Are they trying to make it look like a cover-up?

The possitive side effect of this is that it would also devalue properties and slow down the ridiculous market as many wont afford to buy their home for the same coins if they also have to factor in taxes on top.

That said their will be a lot of "loosers" that are not rich but just very much in debt.

Dropped investigation into 4 more?
Or just the 4 excluded at the beginning - they, I guess, could just about be justified as work events. Or at least weren't obviously flagrantly illegal. Still very much against the spirit of the guidance but relatively minor compared to the other 12. Going to be plenty within those to get rid, IMO.

They're only investigating 8 now.

https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1488201664188325890?t=inKbNnugXNVcWnwGTt3f_Q&s=19

As I understand it anyway

I hope the Met release the results of each party investigation individually on a day by day basis.
Party 1: Illegal, 20 FPN's issued. PM present.
Party 2: etc

Like a shite advent calendar.

Ta - had missed that. Ridiculous.

You buy a house, the value massively increases and you pay next to no tax on your massive gain.

I think the increase in the value of a house is a bit of a red herring. Averaged out across the whole country a 3-bed family home has the exact value of a 3-bed family home i.e., if you buy a house then the value you realise from selling it will allow you to buy only a house of exactly the same size (actually slightly less because of SDLT and various other costs associated with selling, buying and moving). You could sell it in order to get another property that you want more, for example by moving to an area where prices are proportionally lower and getting a bigger place, or moving to a more desirable area and getting a smaller place, but a house is always just worth (in and of itself) a house.

It seems quite odd to tax people just for ownership of something that is really just a functional object for your everyday life (it would be a bit like taxing shoes or a bed), not least because you're already taxed on the income you use to pay for it and quite often have to take on significant debt to own that asset.

The real value of a house is not the gain in its value, but the fact that the money you put into paying off your mortgage is still, in effect, yours (i.e., embedded in the value of the house you can then sell) rather than spaffed away in rent. There are other intangible benefits like peace of mind, but also some tangible losses (SDLT, maintenance etc.). I don't know what the solution is, but the huge disparity in the personal financial impact of owning vs. renting might be better addressed by reducing the latter.

Well no, it's a loan secured against a portfolio in my specific example. But in principle it's just the same. Rich people will use debt very often as it's much more efficient. One other benefit of my example is that by borrowing the money instead of selling investments you avoid any CGT

I don't think the people buying £25million homes in Mayfair are using a mortgage.

Correct, they usually use a private loan taken out by a shell company in a tax haven.

Very rich people almost never buy assets with cash.

I think the increase in the value of a house is a bit of a red herring. Averaged out across the whole country a 3-bed family home has the exact value of a 3-bed family home

Indeed, which is why it's not necessary for houses to increase in prices continuously. That may be a red herring for homeowners but it's not a red herring for people like me who can't afford a house.

It seems quite odd to tax people just for ownership of something that is really just a functional object for your everyday life (it would be a bit like taxing shoes or a bed)

I agree, but shoes and beds are not thought of like investments, and the prices of shoes and beds are probably going down in real terms rather than up at a startling rate. I only support a tax like CGT in its capacity to curb the use of property as an investment and to limit growth to match wages/inflation.

The real value of a house is not the gain in its value, but the fact that the money you put into paying off your mortgage is still, in effect, yours ... rather than spaffed away in rent

You don't need to explain that to me! I feel this pain every month when a large chunk of my salary goes down the drain

It seems quite odd to tax people just for ownership of something that is really just a functional object for your everyday life

Most of the value of my home isn't the bricks and mortar, it's the land it is built on. There is a finite supply of the later and I believe it should be taxed which would encourage people to use as little as possible, use it well etc.

you're already taxed on the income you use to pay for it

The wealthy aren't in many situations. They also tend to own more than typical amounts of property so would pay more tax.

A mortgage is special when buying a property though as your lender takes out a charge (is that the correct term?) on the property which is recorded by the land registry. You could make rules that says each individual can only have one such charge which prevents second home purchase with a mortgage. It doesn't stop borrowing money another way though.

Some news just puts whatever crap may happen to you in perspective:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/slave-prisoner-shed-40-years-carlisle-modern-slavery-act-court-b977442.html

I haven't thought very deeply about it, but surely it would help with generational inequality of boomers living in town houses that they bought for £5k in 1975 and are now valued at £2.5m, while generation rent fork out £2k a month for a shoe box? If they are going to live in relative luxury compared to others, surely fair that they take on a higher tax load to pay for public services that are to the benefit of all?

The existence of LLPs and more importantly SLPs (as well as offshore trusts) predicates against what you've discussed.

https://theferret.scot/edinburgh-offices-linked-secretive-partnerships/