Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[TheHowieLama]

16 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I disagree with your definitions.

 

Buying a house for your primary home is just, y'know, buying something you need. It's a purchase, like when you buy your dinner or your clothes. 

 

Buying a house in need of renovation, working on it (adding value to it) and selling it on is an investment. It is a productive activity. 

 

Buying a house, doing nothing to it and waiting for the price to increase due to the actions of others (Government economic policy, local investments, etc.) is speculation. It is an unproductive activity. 

 

I have no idea about Corbyn's living arrangements, but I suspect it falls into the first category. 

Well not surprisingly I disagree with yours. Everyone needs a place to live. I know a bunch of people who have bought houses - some well off, others not so well off but choosing to pay more than rent because - well because it is an investment. For most, it is the single biggest investment they will own. And, no, you do not need to buy it, there are plenty for rent.

Not a single person I know has ever purchased a property without thinking of re-sale value. So stuff like build quality and current condition come into play, but as important are the quality of the public schools, roads/access, public services in that area, neighborhood rules on what can be done to the property etc... all are considered.

 

So it really has nothing in common with buying a cheeseburger or a pair of jeans. Nothing. Comparing disposable goods with property seems daft.

Do you own a home?

[moof]

11 minutes ago, A Red said:

Not me in this instance, Sebastian Corbyn

Hahaha what a twist

 

”gotem”

[Boss]

There are far too many taxes as it is. Most of them are a load of fucking bollocks designed to extract more and more money from people. Sugar tax? Fuck off! They should be getting out of the way of peoples lives, not scheming up new ways to interject themselves in.

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Boss said:

There are far too many taxes as it is. Most of them are a load of fucking bollocks designed to extract more and more money from people. Sugar tax? Fuck off! They should be getting out of the way of peoples lives, not scheming up new ways to interject themselves in.

I know yeah bring back Pound a Pint, 50p Mitsubishi Turbos and Ciggies for 10p a pop! 

[Numero Veinticinco]

7 minutes ago, Boss said:

There are far too many taxes as it is. Most of them are a load of fucking bollocks designed to extract more and more money from people. Sugar tax? Fuck off! They should be getting out of the way of peoples lives, not scheming up new ways to interject themselves in.

And that’s your opinion. Others disagree. That’s why we have elections. Talking about it like it’s a fact rather than a viewpoint isn’t going to convince anyone, though. 

[Boss]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

And that’s your opinion. Others disagree. That’s why we have elections. Talking about it like it’s a fact rather than a viewpoint isn’t going to convince anyone, though. 

 

Absolutely. It's not my intention to present myself as if I'm speaking fact, it's simply my subjective opinion - which has no more weight than anyone else. Then again that should be taken as read. We're all speaking candidly here. 

[magicrat]

36 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

No tax

Tax

Tax

You do have to pay capital gains tax on profits from sale of property that is not your primary residence

[TheHowieLama]

7 minutes ago, magicrat said:

You do have to pay capital gains tax on profits from sale of property that is not your primary residence

I think arDja was just stating what his opinion on taxation would be -- in Aot's post there is no difference between 1 and 3 are and he has one with no tax and three with tax.

 

There is an exemption to capital gains on primary residences in the States -- 250k. It takes into acoount all cash upgrades and cost of the sale itself. Plus you can only claim it once every 36 months. So you can't be flipping "primary residences".

[Strontium]

29 minutes ago, Boss said:

There are far too many taxes as it is. Most of them are a load of fucking bollocks designed to extract more and more money from people. Sugar tax? Fuck off! They should be getting out of the way of peoples lives, not scheming up new ways to interject themselves in.

 

There is an obesity epidemic that costs the NHS billions every year. This epidemic didn't exist when the NHS was founded, and one of the biggest reasons it exists now is because of the massive increase in sugar intake among the population. The sugar tax is predicated, like taxes on tobacco and alcohol, upon the not unreasonable idea that activities which impact negatively upon the NHS should help offset some of the attendant costs which are incurred as a result.

 

Obviously if you're not arsed about proper funding of the NHS, then this won't be that persuasive an argument.

[magicrat]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

I think arDja was just stating what his opinion on taxation would be -- in Aot's post there is no difference between 1 and 3 are and he has one with no tax and three with tax.

 

There is an exemption to capital gains on primary residences in the States -- 250k. 

Fair enough, I misread it then. I'm in two minds whether the tax free status of profits on primary residences should be capped as it is in the States. It would just mean people moving as soon as their equity got close to the threshold and lining estate agents pockets .

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

There is an obesity epidemic that costs the NHS billions every year. This epidemic didn't exist when the NHS was founded, and one of the biggest reasons it exists now is because of the massive increase in sugar intake among the population. The sugar tax is predicated, like taxes on tobacco and alcohol, upon the not unreasonable idea that activities which impact negatively upon the NHS should help offset some of the attendant costs which are incurred as a result.

 

Obviously if you're not arsed about proper funding of the NHS, then this won't be that persuasive an argument.

Makes perfect sense. 

 

I have a feeling Coca Cola is going to get rid of it’s full fat drinks soon under the guise of being healthy. 

[Rico1304]

This would be nice

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/13/danish-bank-launches-worlds-first-negative-interest-rate-mortgage

[Boss]

1 hour ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

There is an obesity epidemic that costs the NHS billions every year. This epidemic didn't exist when the NHS was founded, and one of the biggest reasons it exists now is because of the massive increase in sugar intake among the population. The sugar tax is predicated, like taxes on tobacco and alcohol, upon the not unreasonable idea that activities which impact negatively upon the NHS should help offset some of the attendant costs which are incurred as a result.

 

Obviously if you're not arsed about proper funding of the NHS, then this won't be that persuasive an argument.

 

People are fat for all sorts of reasons. Some people do not exercise. Some people eat too much fat. Some people eat too much protein which gets converted to fat. You can't arbitrarily tax everybody based on some Nanny State idea of what they should or shouldn't eat. How would you like it if the government levied a soy tax? Soy is unhealthy, yet most Vegetarians consume it as a source of protein. Putting a mobile phone up against your head is unhealthy. Should we create a tax for that as well?

[Rico1304]

Just now, Boss said:

 

People are fat for all sorts of reasons. Some people do not exercise. Some people eat too much fat. Some people eat too much protein which gets converted to fat. You can't arbitrarily tax everybody based on some Nanny state idea of what they should or shouldn't eat. How would you like it if the government levied a soy tax? Soy is unhealthy, yet most Vegetarians consume it as a source of protein. Putting a phone up to against your head is unhealthy. Should we create a tax for that as well?

People are fat for a variety of reasons but the vast majority are fat because they eat shit and don’t move enough.  

[TheHowieLama]

9 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

People are fat for a variety of reasons but the vast majority are fat because they eat shit and don’t move enough.  

And their Ma was fat

[Boss]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

Makes perfect sense. 

 

I have a feeling Coca Cola is going to get rid of it’s full fat drinks soon under the guise of being healthy. 

 

The irony of that is most of the shit they put in the Diet stuff is even worse for you because it's all man made artificial sweeteners like aspartame and shit like that. There's nothing healthy about any of them.

[moof]

17 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

People are fat for all sorts of reasons. Some people do not exercise. Some people eat too much fat. Some people eat too much protein which gets converted to fat. You can't arbitrarily tax everybody based on some Nanny State idea of what they should or shouldn't eat. How would you like it if the government levied a soy tax? Soy is unhealthy, yet most Vegetarians consume it as a source of protein. Putting a mobile phone up against your head is unhealthy. Should we create a tax for that as well?

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

Well not surprisingly I disagree with yours. Everyone needs a place to live. I know a bunch of people who have bought houses - some well off, others not so well off but choosing to pay more than rent because - well because it is an investment. For most, it is the single biggest investment they will own. And, no, you do not need to buy it, there are plenty for rent.

Not a single person I know has ever purchased a property without thinking of re-sale value. So stuff like build quality and current condition come into play, but as important are the quality of the public schools, roads/access, public services in that area, neighborhood rules on what can be done to the property etc... all are considered.

 

So it really has nothing in common with buying a cheeseburger or a pair of jeans. Nothing. Comparing disposable goods with property seems daft.

Do you own a home?

Yes. I bought it because of the neoliberal consensus between the Tories and New Labour gave me no comfort that either the State Pension or my employment pension would provide me with a guarantee of a roof over my head when I retire. 

 

I'm also in the process of moving house  (out of Tuebrook!) and I can honestly say that I haven't given a thought to resale value, because I'm not looking for a tradeable commodity: I'm looking for a home.

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I'm looking for a home.

Yea, so not just a house. I assume that means you will have some preferences as to location and surrounding area?

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

Yea, so not just a house. I assume that means you will have some preferences as to location and surrounding area?

 

Handy for work and not a shithole. 

 

It sort of struck me as odd that whenever I tell people I'm moving house the first question is "where are you looking?" Anywhere that's a nice enough, affordable house, with a garden in an area that meets those two criteria will do.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

29 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

People are fat for all sorts of reasons. Some people do not exercise. Some people eat too much fat. Some people eat too much protein which gets converted to fat. You can't arbitrarily tax everybody based on some Nanny State idea of what they should or shouldn't eat. How would you like it if the government levied a soy tax? Soy is unhealthy, yet most Vegetarians consume it as a source of protein. Putting a mobile phone up against your head is unhealthy. Should we create a tax for that as well?

What are your thoughts on the higher taxes imposed on alcohol, ciggies, leaded petrol, etc?

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Handy for work and not a shithole. 

 

It sort of struck me as odd that whenever I tell people I'm moving house the first question is "where are you looking?"

By definition, "handy for work" is where you are looking. Not a shithole is good for re-sale.

 

Do you have kids or planning for a family?

[Boss]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

What are your thoughts on the higher taxes imposed on alcohol, ciggies, leaded petrol, etc?

I agree with ciggies and petrol because they damage the environment and others in a passive sense. Alcohol doesn't, it's self inflicted, so no there shouldn't be a tax on alcohol.  

[Rico1304]

29 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

The irony of that is most of the shit they put in the Diet stuff is even worse for you because it's all man made artificial sweeteners like aspartame and shit like that. There's nothing healthy about any of them.

Are we in the conspiracy theory thread? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

41 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

By definition, "handy for work" is where you are looking. Not a shithole is good for re-sale.

 

Do you have kids or planning for a family?

"Handy for work" covers a wide area of rail and bus routes.

 

What is "good for re-sale" is entirely moot if you'renot looking to re-sell.

 

No kids and no plans. I might consider getting a cat at some point, if that's relevant.