General News Thread

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/03/angela-rayner-admits-underpaying-stamp-duty-on-800000-seaside-flat

 

Darren Jones' magical appointment to Deputy PM, but not definitely not Deputy PM, suddenly becomes clear.

Surprising from the Guardian to even run that story.

 

She isn't popular and this coming out will make her popularity nosedive. Begs the question, how can she afford an additional £800K property on her £160K a year salary - which she's only been on for the past 12 months? 

 

Maybe she inherited it. 

[bovril]

Re the insanity that's taken over British politics I think that's what happens when a monolingual population with very little knowledge of the world around them comes into contact with social media.

[Guest Bilo]

1 minute ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Yeah, but 40% on anything above 325K, really? 
 

Threshold should be a lot higher, much like the tax bands need moving higher. 

I understand the argument with the housing market meaning that that £325k limit means that even many modest homes, especially in the south, will now be subject to fairly hefty IHT.

 

But the first £325k is still tax-free and this gives a pretty solid cushion; I could inherit £500,000 from my parents and only have to pay £70,000 tax, still leaving me £430,000 in the black. I could inherit £325,000 and not pay a penny. We're still talking windfall amounts even on relatively modest figures.

 

But what if we're now talking about tens of millions or even billions in properties? What if I elect to hoard them? That doesn't do anything to stimulate a housing market that now means that a couple such as yourselves would need to be on six figures each, not between you, to be able to afford a house in a part of London that isn't on fire. And given the opportunities that exist there, there's a good chance someone in a successful career in certain sectors would need to do that.

 

Getting back to that £500,000 estate example now, we can pay off the tax by selling the house. We still have £430,000 to spend. We pay off the mortgage on our own so we can leave that to our kids. Great for our kids, less so for their classmates who live in rented accommodation and whose parents will never afford the deposit to buy. This means their parents won't be leaving them a house in a will, and that means your kids' classmates' kids probably won't get a house either.

 

I'm lucky enough to be in the situation of owning my own home and am likely to be able to pass it on to my daughter. But I can see that many her age won't be in the same position and that that isn't sustainable for community cohesion. Reform UK won't address this societal inequality in any meaningful way because they prefer pointing at boats and spouting soundbites, but it needs addressing properly.

 

[Guest Bilo]

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Give me, a minimum wage earner, £10,000 and I’ll spend it in my local community, in my local economy on things I need to survive. Give Musk £10,000 and he’ll not even notice it. It won’t get spent in the economy, it will just disappear into his bank accounts rather than spent on consumer goods, and wouldn’t provide any immediate stimulus to the economy. 

That's exactly what marginal propensity to spend entails. It's far more economically beneficial to give an Amazon delivery driver a pay rise and tax break than it is Jeff Bezos.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

I'm yet to hear an argument from that particular area that actually considers factors beyond short term personal gain to be honest. 

 

Earnings don't mean much when you have no resources to buy with them and preserve the life and comfort of yourself and those around you. 

 

Edit: I guess it comes down to how a person defines intelligence; either through making short term gain, or considering the future of themselves and others. 

Would be interested in hearing any viewpoint from those more given to individualism on here on this one, to be honest. 

[Guest Bilo]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Would be interested in hearing any viewpoint from those more given to individualism on here on this one, to be honest. 

Quite honestly, economic libertarianism in the mould of Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick is just the property rules of a toddler with more syllables.

[Jon the Hat]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think they're playing both sides right now, and there's a lot of animus between the Asian nations that we in the West don't go into the depths of. 

They are pretty good at walking that line, hopefully Trump as not permanently pushed them to China.  Likewise Indonesia.

[Jon the Hat]

19 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Surprising from the Guardian to even run that story.

 

She isn't popular and this coming out will make her popularity nosedive. Begs the question, how can she afford an additional £800K property on her £160K a year salary - which she's only been on for the past 12 months? 

 

Maybe she inherited it. 

It sounds to me like she took her money out of the Manchester house, but as she is still a beneficiary of that trust in the event of her ex-husbands death, (so she can care for their children), she technically still has an interest.  Seems a bit outside the point of the stamp duty rules to be honest.

 

Edit: This indeed the story the Times are telling. She took out 170k and used most of it as a deposit on the flat.

Edited 3 September 2025 by Jon the Hat

[Jon the Hat]

15 minutes ago, Bilo said:

I understand the argument with the housing market meaning that that £325k limit means that even many modest homes, especially in the south, will now be subject to fairly hefty IHT.

 

But the first £325k is still tax-free and this gives a pretty solid cushion; I could inherit £500,000 from my parents and only have to pay £70,000 tax, still leaving me £430,000 in the black. I could inherit £325,000 and not pay a penny. We're still talking windfall amounts even on relatively modest figures.

 

But what if we're now talking about tens of millions or even billions in properties? What if I elect to hoard them? That doesn't do anything to stimulate a housing market that now means that a couple such as yourselves would need to be on six figures each, not between you, to be able to afford a house in a part of London that isn't on fire. And given the opportunities that exist there, there's a good chance someone in a successful career in certain sectors would need to do that.

 

Getting back to that £500,000 estate example now, we can pay off the tax by selling the house. We still have £430,000 to spend. We pay off the mortgage on our own so we can leave that to our kids. Great for our kids, less so for their classmates who live in rented accommodation and whose parents will never afford the deposit to buy. This means their parents won't be leaving them a house in a will, and that means your kids' classmates' kids probably won't get a house either.

 

I'm lucky enough to be in the situation of owning my own home and am likely to be able to pass it on to my daughter. But I can see that many her age won't be in the same position and that that isn't sustainable for community cohesion. Reform UK won't address this societal inequality in any meaningful way because they prefer pointing at boats and spouting soundbites, but it needs addressing properly.

 

The much bigger impact on your kids is to pass as much as possible of that inheritance to them as soon as you can and help them get on the housing ladder.  its not fair, but it is the right thing to do personally.

[Guest Bilo]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

The much bigger impact on your kids is to pass as much as possible of that inheritance to them as soon as you can and help them get on the housing ladder.  its not fair, but it is the right thing to do personally.

Of course, and this happens frequently. Give a chunky gift while you're around to see them benefit from it. This again though is middle-class framing, and I don't think someone giving their kid a £50k gift to help with the deposit on a three bed semi is problematic. 

[Zear0]

33 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Surprising from the Guardian to even run that story.

 

She isn't popular and this coming out will make her popularity nosedive. Begs the question, how can she afford an additional £800K property on her £160K a year salary - which she's only been on for the past 12 months? 

 

Maybe she inherited it. 

Sounds like envy politics...

[Tommy G]

She's admitted it and falls back on legal advice - this is straightforward conveyancing - she should publish the advice or resign. 

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, Bilo said:

Quite honestly, economic libertarianism in the mould of Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick is just the property rules of a toddler with more syllables.

The whole Mises Institute, come to that. 

 

That being said, I would like to hear an argument in favour of such self interest as it pertains to the future because like I said, I've not heard one and I want to know if there is an argument there or it is simply that they don't assign importance to that future. 

 

37 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

They are pretty good at walking that line, hopefully Trump as not permanently pushed them to China.  Likewise Indonesia.

I don't think so, but I guess we shall see.

[urban.spaceman]

29 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Surprising from the Guardian to even run that story.

 

She isn't popular and this coming out will make her popularity nosedive. Begs the question, how can she afford an additional £800K property on her £160K a year salary - which she's only been on for the past 12 months? 

 

Maybe she inherited it. 

10 years worth of an MP’s salary plus 4 years worth of shadow education secretary roles, then 5 years as shadow deputy PM plus other various roles, and one year as minister for housing; she’s easily earned over £1m in her parliamentary career so far. This new property has been mortgaged and not paid for outright, meaning she can spread the cost over the course of her mortgage. 
 

Would you like me to dig a little deeper into the cumulative £20m of tax avoided by Akshata Murty or the £5m settlement negotiated by Nadim Zahawi with the HMRC while in his position as Chancellor of the exchequer?

[urban.spaceman]

15 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

She's admitted it and falls back on legal advice - this is straightforward conveyancing - she should publish the advice or resign. 

Nah she’s a monster and needs to be jailed. 
 

Unfortunately the prisons are all full

Edited 3 September 2025 by urban.spaceman

[Tommy G]

Just now, urban.spaceman said:

Nah she’s a monster and needs to be jailed. 
 

Unfortunately the prisons are all full

Not jailed but she should resign. She's got to find another £40K too 

[urban.spaceman]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Not jailed but she should resign. She's got to find another £40K too 

 

#TwoTierJustice

[Jon the Hat]

31 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

She's admitted it and falls back on legal advice - this is straightforward conveyancing - she should publish the advice or resign. 

It is not straightforward at all.

[bmt]

3 hours ago, JonnyBoy said:

So many lefties on this forum you will never win unfortunately. Blind leading the blind 

Yeah been such a left wing government right?

[kenny]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

10 years worth of an MP’s salary plus 4 years worth of shadow education secretary roles, then 5 years as shadow deputy PM plus other various roles, and one year as minister for housing; she’s easily earned over £1m in her parliamentary career so far. This new property has been mortgaged and not paid for outright, meaning she can spread the cost over the course of her mortgage. 
 

Would you like me to dig a little deeper into the cumulative £20m of tax avoided by Akshata Murty or the £5m settlement negotiated by Nadim Zahawi with the HMRC while in his position as Chancellor of the exchequer?

Didn't AM lose her job in government over the scandal of paying tax in India rather than the UK? Its a shame that after voluntarily choosing to pay in the UK rather than India she was still hounded out of office.

 

It would be awful after his careless error if Zahawi kept his position as well.

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, kenny said:

What does the m stand for? I'm hopeful for the £1 part.

I'm still ****ing waiting for my £10k. 

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

It is not straightforward at all.

Not for me and you, but if you are a lawyer advising the deputy PM it is. 

[Tommy G]

20 minutes ago, kenny said:

Didn't AM lose her job in government over the scandal of paying tax in India rather than the UK? Its a shame that after voluntarily choosing to pay in the UK rather than India she was still hounded out of office.

 

It would be awful after his careless error if Zahawi kept his position as well.

Imagine picking two examples of people that lost their jobs off the back of a ''scandal'' to back someone else justifying not losing their job. 

[kenny]

Just now, Tommy G said:

Imagine picking two examples of people that lost their jobs off the back of a ''scandal'' to back someone else justifying not losing their job. 

One of them has never worked in government and was simply a spouse.

[Greg2607]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Surprising from the Guardian to even run that story.

 

She isn't popular and this coming out will make her popularity nosedive. Begs the question, how can she afford an additional £800K property on her £160K a year salary - which she's only been on for the past 12 months? 

 

Maybe she inherited it. 

because she "sold" her stake in the Ashton Under Lyne home to a trust for her son who has life long disabilities.   She used that money to purchase the flat in Hove. 

 

now, even as a labour supporter, I do think, her position becomes relatively untenable at this point, even though I don't think she has done anything wrong morally. 

 

She took legal advice and was told that she had an amount to pay for Stamp Duty.  She paid that amount.  It then turns out that advice was incorrect and she has to front up to that. 

 

if this was a Conservative, I'd be saying that they were untenable in their role and the same standards need to apply to the people in Government. 

 

Standards are exceptionally important in Public life. There should be no extenuating circumstances. 

 

Same reason that Reform Muppet from North West Leicestershire should lose his seat for trying to influence an election process by giving away free ice cream from a family ice cream van around the corner from the polling station. 

 

Leicestershire County Council is an embarrassment at the minute. How people voted in Dan Harrison I'll never know. the guys a moron of the highest order.