Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A couple of new betting specials from Ladbrokes

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A couple of new betting specials from Ladbrokes

#Budget2017 key points:

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,294
    Thirst?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,725
    Should we weep over a bookie losing money?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    Should we weep over a bookie losing money?

    If they go out of business, yes!
  • 16/1 for a bet that expires in 40 days would need something special to justify it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    Scott_P said:
    Still growing, despite all the doom and gloom.
  • 16/1 for a bet that expires in 40 days would need something special to justify it.

    Your girlfriend being an SNP MSP?
  • FPT: Mr. D, yeah, I did. You big snowflake. And I'm assuming you're male too!
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2017
    Alistair said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hammond commented on how first time buyers struggle to raise the deposit for a house, then offered no stamp duty as the solution. But surely reducing the tax simply shaves a little bit off the buyers' mortgage, but does nothing to help with the problem he outlined in the first place?

    Like every other scheme that increases the amount of money a buyer can offer this is a payout to current property owners. Sellers gets more money.
    Every problem has to have a solution which rewards the tory client vote, or at least doesn't impact them.

    Personally I'm not too bothered by the stamp duty stuff though. It's all a bit meh.

    I don't generally like transaction taxes - IMO, it would be much better to charge an annual lvt, or a proper council/property tax which would stop freehold land/residential property in the UK (particularly SE England) being used as a store of tax-free wealth/viable mechanism for IHT avoidance.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,040

    16/1 for a bet that expires in 40 days would need something special to justify it.

    Your girlfriend being an SNP MSP?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,189
    Kezia is not joining the SNP. She quite clearly does not believe in Scottish Independence which is kind of a biggy when it comes to being a member.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    FPT: Mr. D, yeah, I did. You big snowflake. And I'm assuming you're male too!

    :o
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    edited November 2017
    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,020
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,250
    Pulpstar said:

    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Thanks. Still a net gain, although a more modest one. Did the OBR factor in the effect of increasing supply on house prices?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,763
    edited November 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    Scott_P said:

    Pulpstar said:

    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.

    Wouldn't that act to keep prices at/below the threshold?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,294
    Scott_P said:

    Pulpstar said:

    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.

    Hmmm. How many first-time buyers buy a house worth £500k ? And are they the people this move is meant to be helping?
  • RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    Pulpstar said:

    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.

    Wouldn't that act to keep prices at/below the threshold?
    Indeed.

    When I got my first the rule at the time was 1% on the full value of the house if the house was worth more than £125k but less than some other figure. So my house was purchased for £124,500.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,258
    edited November 2017
    Re SNP's supposed silence on the matter, why interrupt a masterpiece of SLab schismatic, homophobic, misogynistic, bilious backbiting? It'd be like shouting out 'that's yer prospective father in law behind the arras' during a Gielgud Hamlet.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
  • RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 556
    edited November 2017
    How exactly does Stamp Duty work? When I bought mine it was below the threashold and so I didn't really pay attention.
  • BromBrom Posts: 937

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,648
    edited November 2017
    For some light relief, apparently a Catholic school in Adelaide has got in trouble following the installation of a statue of a monk giving a child a loaf of bread. What could possibly be wrong with that?

  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,063

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    And it tilts the buying power slightly towards First Time Buyers and away from Buy to Let landlords. After almost every Osborne budget there was this same debate. I can't see it worth getting too excited about.

    As a general policy, the government should be encouraging owner occupier-ship and making it as easy as possible for those who want to move from renting to owning to be able to do so.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,948
    A rabbit stuck in the headlights of an oncoming truck.

    The Budget.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,020
    £500k houses aren't generally bought by FTBs, the market there is mover uppers. So I can't see a massive issue there.
  • On the face of it, Budget seems alright. No VAT buggery, which is a nice surprise.
  • Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    I think its journalists misinterpreting it and not seeing the wood for the trees.
  • Good haikus have to have a conection between the different lines...
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,063
    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    The OBRs points are correct but the downsides they give are modest and outweighed by the benefits to the FTBers.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    JonathanD said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    The OBRs points are correct but the downsides they give are modest and outweighed by the benefits to the FTBers.
    I want to know if their 0.3% forecast includes the effects of increased supply? Surely the budget should be judged as a complete package.
  • Mr. D, be fair. It's important to be finickity about the figures to decide whether the Stamp Duty change is good or bad, so that we know whether commentary upon it should be prefaced "Despite Brexit" or "Because of Brexit" :p
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,039
    edited November 2017
    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    Talking Faisal Islam here - actively moaning that it doesn't help £500,000 buyers. What planet is he on and of course it shouldn't help £500,000 buyers
  • Mr. NorthWales, that's not unlike wibbling about a 0.1% spike in inflation.

    The reaction of most people to first time buyers wanting a half a million quid home will be so ****ing what.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,189
    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house. FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with.

    The talk about saving money assumes there is no change in people's behaviour now they have to take a smaller chunk out of their deposit for tax/no competition for houses. Ten seconds of thought shows that behaviour won't be static.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,354
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    It presumably depends on how many first time buyers take out mortgages at the maximum available loan to value ratio. This looks like a policy that aims to get good headlines rather than solve a problem at a reasonable cost. Not an expert however.
  • Jonathan said:

    A rabbit stuck in the headlights of an oncoming truck.

    The Budget.

    No - Corbyn's shouty incoherrent response
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,259
    I think the journos are desperately trying to tear the budget apart. It's the done thing, you see.

    It may well happen, but the reduction in stamp is not the problem some people are trying to make it.

    Imagine the response had he put stamp up, and then tell me that a reduction is a bad idea. Trouble is everyone clings to the status quo like it's an unalloyed good, which it often (mostly) isn't.
  • MTimT said:

    For some light relief, apparently a Catholic school in Adelaide has got in trouble following the installation of a statue of a monk giving a child a loaf of bread. What could possibly be wrong with that?

    No doubt they will just move the statue to a different school and hope the fuss dies down.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,524
    BBC deficit graph appears to be completely wrong.

    2017/18 deficit revised down from £58.3bn to £49.9bn.

    BBC shows revision upwards (16.28)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-42026814
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,354
    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,648
    LOL

    MTimT said:

    For some light relief, apparently a Catholic school in Adelaide has got in trouble following the installation of a statue of a monk giving a child a loaf of bread. What could possibly be wrong with that?

    No doubt they will just move the statue to a different school and hope the fuss dies down.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,020
    The saddest tweet of the day for me :

    :(
  • Alistair said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house. FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with.

    The talk about saving money assumes there is no change in people's behaviour now they have to take a smaller chunk out of their deposit for tax/no competition for houses. Ten seconds of thought shows that behaviour won't be static.
    Who are the competitors to first time buyers? Buy to letters and others. Yes FTBs can now outbid BTL competitors. That's the frigging point!

    Sale of a home worth £300,000:
    Purchased by first time buyer: stamp duty = 0
    Purchased by someone moving up property ladder: stamp duty = £5,000
    Purchased by Buy to Let landlord: £14,000

    First time buyers now have a massive stamp duty advantage on those buying to let. Good.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,020

    Alistair said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house. FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with.

    The talk about saving money assumes there is no change in people's behaviour now they have to take a smaller chunk out of their deposit for tax/no competition for houses. Ten seconds of thought shows that behaviour won't be static.
    Who are the competitors to first time buyers? Buy to letters and others. Yes FTBs can now outbid BTL competitors. That's the frigging point!

    Sale of a home worth £300,000:
    Purchased by first time buyer: stamp duty = 0
    Purchased by someone moving up property ladder: stamp duty = £5,000
    Purchased by Buy to Let landlord: £14,000

    First time buyers now have a massive stamp duty advantage on those buying to let. Good.
    Its all fair enough in the round to be honest.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400

    Re SNP's supposed silence on the matter, why interrupt a masterpiece of SLab schismatic, homophobic, misogynistic, bilious backbiting? It'd be like shouting out 'that's yer prospective father in law behind the arras' during a Gielgud Hamlet.

    And the #teamKez nonsense from our First Minister?

    I actually think Kezia will stand down from all politics at the first opportunity and find something more useful to do with her life. It would be a surprise if she went to the SNP.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    But isn't it extra money above and beyond the normal budget?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 900

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    Talking Faisal Islam here - actively moaning that it doesn't help £500,000 buyers. What planet is he on and of course it shouldn't help £500,000 buyers
    Welcome to the London bubble.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,648
    MikeL said:

    BBC deficit graph appears to be completely wrong.

    2017/18 deficit revised down from £58.3bn to £49.9bn.

    BBC shows revision upwards (16.28)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-42026814

    They seem to have swapped the spring and autumn columns.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    And it tilts the buying power slightly towards First Time Buyers and away from Buy to Let landlords. After almost every Osborne budget there was this same debate. I can't see it worth getting too excited about.

    As a general policy, the government should be encouraging owner occupier-ship and making it as easy as possible for those who want to move from renting to owning to be able to do so.
    Yes, and this will help to a modest extent. To describe a projected increase of 0.3% in house prices as a "blow" is just completely absurd. If this is the best the gotcha merchants can come up with Hammond has done a better job than we had any right to expect.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    It presumably depends on how many first time buyers take out mortgages at the maximum available loan to value ratio. This looks like a policy that aims to get good headlines rather than solve a problem at a reasonable cost. Not an expert however.
    I suspect a lot do, given current house prices. If I had the choice between the current situation, or being able to put a grand or so more on a deposit at the cost of a few hundred quid over the course of twenty five years, I know which I'd pick.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    Alistair said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house. FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with.

    The talk about saving money assumes there is no change in people's behaviour now they have to take a smaller chunk out of their deposit for tax/no competition for houses. Ten seconds of thought shows that behaviour won't be static.
    Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?

    "FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."

    FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.

    "FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."

    FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    Scott_P said:
    It loses something in the copy/pasting. :D
  • BromBrom Posts: 937
    kyf_100 said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    Talking Faisal Islam here - actively moaning that it doesn't help £500,000 buyers. What planet is he on and of course it shouldn't help £500,000 buyers
    Welcome to the London bubble.
    Faisal Islam probably isn't even the best journalist in his own family, his kneejerk tweets do nothing to enhance his credibility.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,130
    Scott_P said:

    Pulpstar said:

    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.

    First time buyers buying a 500k house don't need help from the state
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    Inflation is 3% so an inflation increase would be £3.66bn. But in addition to the straight increase there is an unspecified sum available to meet any nurses award from the Pay Review body and there is £10bn of capital expenditure, presumably over a few years. I am pretty sure the overall increase will exceed inflation.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,259
    DavidL said:

    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    And it tilts the buying power slightly towards First Time Buyers and away from Buy to Let landlords. After almost every Osborne budget there was this same debate. I can't see it worth getting too excited about.

    As a general policy, the government should be encouraging owner occupier-ship and making it as easy as possible for those who want to move from renting to owning to be able to do so.
    Yes, and this will help to a modest extent. To describe a projected increase of 0.3% in house prices as a "blow" is just completely absurd. If this is the best the gotcha merchants can come up with Hammond has done a better job than we had any right to expect.
    Well yes. Obviously. As I said earlier, just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth had he put up stamp at the bottom end of the ladder. I doubt we'd be hearing people cheering it on as it would suppress house prices a bit.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    Inflation is 3% so an inflation increase would be £3.66bn. But in addition to the straight increase there is an unspecified sum available to meet any nurses award from the Pay Review body and there is £10bn of capital expenditure, presumably over a few years. I am pretty sure the overall increase will exceed inflation.
    Inflation in health care runs at more than inflation in the normal economy.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 954
    It's this desperate attempts of "gotcha" for politicians that end up with people hating politics and thinking moderate politicians aren't any different from the extremist ones. Both Faisal Islam and Sam Coates today have tried their a-ha moments, even though they don't hold true. The disappointing thing is that they get rewarded with thousands of retweets, and all their followers nod along at how awful the government is, with no need to listen to the rebuttal. This is why we are in the age of Trump and Corbyn. No-one listens to both sides of an argument any more.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,354
    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    But isn't it extra money above and beyond the normal budget?
    Hmm. It looks like you are right and so I withdraw my comment. Having briefly looked at a Kings Fund report and a Fullfact article, it's pretty complicated. It depends on whether you use RPI/CPI or the healthcare inflator, which is 4% currently. Also whether you take into account a population increase and therefore measure budget per capita and additional demand in the form of a higher percentage of older people, plus other factors.
  • Anorak said:

    DavidL said:

    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    And it tilts the buying power slightly towards First Time Buyers and away from Buy to Let landlords. After almost every Osborne budget there was this same debate. I can't see it worth getting too excited about.

    As a general policy, the government should be encouraging owner occupier-ship and making it as easy as possible for those who want to move from renting to owning to be able to do so.
    Yes, and this will help to a modest extent. To describe a projected increase of 0.3% in house prices as a "blow" is just completely absurd. If this is the best the gotcha merchants can come up with Hammond has done a better job than we had any right to expect.
    Well yes. Obviously. As I said earlier, just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth had he put up stamp at the bottom end of the ladder. I doubt we'd be hearing people cheering it on as it would suppress house prices a bit.
    Adam Boulton is so pathetic in his reporting - doesn't he have labour connections and of course he is an avid remainer. Gone over to BBC
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    Inflation is 3% so an inflation increase would be £3.66bn. But in addition to the straight increase there is an unspecified sum available to meet any nurses award from the Pay Review body and there is £10bn of capital expenditure, presumably over a few years. I am pretty sure the overall increase will exceed inflation.
    Inflation in health care runs at more than inflation in the normal economy.
    True but they were looking for £4bn which is not much more than inflation and they will get more than that in the round. Once again people looking to make a headline are being very simplistic and not a little misleading.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    edited November 2017
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    It's never enough. Maybe this time the really wolf is at the door, but after so many false cries even if we should still pay attention, you can understand why it has less impact.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,130

    MTimT said:

    For some light relief, apparently a Catholic school in Adelaide has got in trouble following the installation of a statue of a monk giving a child a loaf of bread. What could possibly be wrong with that?

    No doubt they will just move the statue to a different school and hope the fuss dies down.
    Chapeau.

    That's top tier snark
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    But isn't it extra money above and beyond the normal budget?
    Hmm. It looks like you are right and so I withdraw my comment. Having briefly looked at a Kings Fund report and a Fullfact article, it's pretty complicated. It depends on whether you use RPI/CPI or the healthcare inflator, which is 4% currently. Also whether you take into account a population increase and therefore measure budget per capita and additional demand in the form of a higher percentage of older people, plus other factors.
    @rkrkrk does make a good point below that inflation is higher in the NHS than in the wider economy.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 954
    JonathanD said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    So the ORB are complete idiots or is it just some of the journalists interpreting their data are complete idiots? Either way it's a big boost for first time buyers.
    The OBRs points are correct but the downsides they give are modest and outweighed by the benefits to the FTBers.
    But who needs to run the numbers to find out a net effect when you can just use the smaller number to make your attack and raise your profile over it?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,524
    MTimT said:

    MikeL said:

    BBC deficit graph appears to be completely wrong.

    2017/18 deficit revised down from £58.3bn to £49.9bn.

    BBC shows revision upwards (16.28)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-42026814

    They seem to have swapped the spring and autumn columns.
    It's totally hopeless.

    Main Budget report on BBC website and the first "Budget in Charts" is completely wrong.

    Always a worry in that it shows whoever is doing it doesn't actually understand the numbers.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    MikeL said:

    MTimT said:

    MikeL said:

    BBC deficit graph appears to be completely wrong.

    2017/18 deficit revised down from £58.3bn to £49.9bn.

    BBC shows revision upwards (16.28)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-42026814

    They seem to have swapped the spring and autumn columns.
    It's totally hopeless.

    Main Budget report on BBC website and the first "Budget in Charts" is completely wrong.

    Always a worry in that it shows whoever is doing it doesn't actually understand the numbers.
    You could tweet/email them to alert them to this error. Hopefully someone will spot it!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,130
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    Stevens asked for a base line increase about 2 years ago. He was given the full amount (£20bn?) he asked for.

    This is the amount he was wrong by
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606
    Not really worth wondering about how the budget went until we see what the papers lead on in the next couple of days, and thus what is causing enough of a ruckus to cause a climbdown.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,400
    edited November 2017
    Anorak said:

    DavidL said:

    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I don't get it. A £250,000 home is predicted to go up by £750, yet the stamp duty saving is £5000. That's a big net gain for the first time buyer.
    £5000 is the stamp duty on a £300,000 house. The stamp duty on a £250,000 house is currently £2,500.

    The rise is linear between.
    Indeed but currently the first time buyer will need to find the £2,500 in full up front as there's no mortgage on stamp duty. If the house value goes up by £750 and they have a 90% mortgage then their deposit will go up by £75

    Would I take a £75 increase in up front deposit cost for a £2,500 reduction in up front taxes? Yes, yes I would.

    Not only that but for the first time buyer their £2,500 in taxes is dead money that is gone. The increase in house price may cost £75 more up front but the asset they've purchased is worth more too.
    And if the main worry is a deposit, won't this change mean that you can afford a more expensive house than you otherwise could as you are able to put more into the deposit.
    Bingo! That is the point of this policy.

    It helps people not on the property ladder buy properties they couldn't previously afford.
    And it tilts the buying power slightly towards First Time Buyers and away from Buy to Let landlords. After almost every Osborne budget there was this same debate. I can't see it worth getting too excited about.

    As a general policy, the government should be encouraging owner occupier-ship and making it as easy as possible for those who want to move from renting to owning to be able to do so.
    Yes, and this will help to a modest extent. To describe a projected increase of 0.3% in house prices as a "blow" is just completely absurd. If this is the best the gotcha merchants can come up with Hammond has done a better job than we had any right to expect.
    Well yes. Obviously. As I said earlier, just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth had he put up stamp at the bottom end of the ladder. I doubt we'd be hearing people cheering it on as it would suppress house prices a bit.
    If we really do get to 300K new houses a year and cut immigration to, say 200k a year, we may well find some downward pressure on housing once the initial backlog clears. Especially if interest rates creep up and real wages remain tight.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,189
    RobD said:



    Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?

    "FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."

    FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.

    "FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."

    FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.

    Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.

    Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792
    Friend of mine nearly bought his first flat but pulled out about two months ago.
    Looks a great decision now!

    Not convinced that 5k on a 300k purchase makes an enormous amount of difference - but still good news for first time buyers.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,130
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    Inflation is 3% so an inflation increase would be £3.66bn. But in addition to the straight increase there is an unspecified sum available to meet any nurses award from the Pay Review body and there is £10bn of capital expenditure, presumably over a few years. I am pretty sure the overall increase will exceed inflation.
    Inflation in health care runs at more than inflation in the normal economy.
    True but they were looking for £4bn which is not much more than inflation and they will get more than that in the round. Once again people looking to make a headline are being very simplistic and not a little misleading.
    This is an additional increase. Inflation was covered in the original 5 year plan
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,228
    rkrkrk said:

    Friend of mine nearly bought his first flat but pulled out about two months ago.
    Looks a great decision now!

    Not convinced that 5k on a 300k purchase makes an enormous amount of difference - but still good news for first time buyers.

    Well, the 5k is real money, the 300k is merely a variable in the equation which determines your real money mortgage outgoings per month.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,810
    Alistair said:

    RobD said:



    Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?

    "FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."

    FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.

    "FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."

    FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.

    Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.

    Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
    Isn't that just saying that people with more money can afford more? If they are able to afford a more expensive house, that frees up cheaper stock further down the ladder.
  • Charles said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    Stevens asked for a base line increase about 2 years ago. He was given the full amount (£20bn?) he asked for.

    This is the amount he was wrong by
    No, this is the amount he's asking for this year. Even if Hammond this year gave £4bn extra to the NHS do you think next year they'd say "we have enough money now thanks" or do you think there'd be an urgent reason why another 4-5bn were needed?

    There's never enough money. No matter how much you give more could always be used.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,130
    Alistair said:

    RobD said:



    Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?

    "FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."

    FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.

    "FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."

    FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.

    Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.

    Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
    It dies - it reduces the amount they need to save
  • FensterFenster Posts: 1,535
    Gotcha Journalism.

    Faisal Islam is one of the worst for it. They are all busting for a 'gotcha' headline.

    None of the dxcitable, group-thinky young journos get out of the bubble enough*.

    Pasty Tax and Dementia Tax headlines worked because they were taxes. I can't see this Stamp Duty stuff creating negative headlines because the govt is getting rid of a tax.

    Hammond is still boring though. Too cautious and managerial for me.

    *This is why I think Matthew Parris is a great read. His vehement anti-Brexit stance is effective because a) he's a Tory, b) he is worldly and c) he has a principled history of swimming against the tide.
  • DavidL said:

    Re SNP's supposed silence on the matter, why interrupt a masterpiece of SLab schismatic, homophobic, misogynistic, bilious backbiting? It'd be like shouting out 'that's yer prospective father in law behind the arras' during a Gielgud Hamlet.

    And the #teamKez nonsense from our First Minister?
    Think of that as an appreciative murmur of approval at first sight of the set, enhancement rather than interruption. The show must definitely go on.
  • Alistair said:

    RobD said:



    Doesn't your first sentence here contradict the second?

    "FTB aren't just going to offer the money they are saving on stamp duty as extra on the house."

    FTBs aren't going to offer money saved on stamp duty.

    "FTBs who can already afford the deposit now have even more mortgage money to our bid competitors with."

    FTBs are going to offer money saved on stamp duty.

    Important bit you missed which I realise is not exactly clear 'not just'. FTBs who have saved up for deposit + stamp duty have much more money to play with than just the saved stamp duty.

    Sure it helps them out against BTL landlords which is good but it also helps them out against other FTBs. It's a reward for the richest FTBs. It doesn't help people struggling to get a deposit together.
    No the richest FTBs are hit by the cap and gain nothing.

    For those at the bottom of the ladder just unable to get a deposit together this could be significant enough to get them over the line.

    At worst I don't see how all first time buyers being helped is bad news for a policy designed to help first time buyers! First time buyers are not only competing against other first time buyers, but the fact they're potentially £14,000 better off in UP FRONT unmortgageable costs than buy to let landlords is an incredible saving.
  • I see the PB Tories are at the tribally defensive part of the various stages of a Tory budget.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,354
    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    But isn't it extra money above and beyond the normal budget?
    Hmm. It looks like you are right and so I withdraw my comment. Having briefly looked at a Kings Fund report and a Fullfact article, it's pretty complicated. It depends on whether you use RPI/CPI or the healthcare inflator, which is 4% currently. Also whether you take into account a population increase and therefore measure budget per capita and additional demand in the form of a higher percentage of older people, plus other factors.
    @rkrkrk does make a good point below that inflation is higher in the NHS than in the wider economy.
    To summarise my understanding of the Kings Fund report, the government has committed to increase NHS England's budget in real terms. ie the total budget will increase by more than the standard 3% inflation rate. However, healthcare inflation is running at 4% and the population has increased. This means a decrease of 0.8% in terms of healthcare delivered per head of population. Add in other demographic trends where the proportion of older people increases there is a greater demand on the healthcare system, which further reduces healthcare delivered per patient. All of that is before any improvement in provision in terms of treatments.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,606

    I see the PB Tories are at the tribally defensive part of the various stages of a Tory budget.

    Surely not - that comes after the first real salvoes hit, and its too early for that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,130

    Charles said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Significantly less than inflation on a £122 billion budget. If the service is already under pressure, I can see they would react.
    Stevens asked for a base line increase about 2 years ago. He was given the full amount (£20bn?) he asked for.

    This is the amount he was wrong by
    No, this is the amount he's asking for this year. Even if Hammond this year gave £4bn extra to the NHS do you think next year they'd say "we have enough money now thanks" or do you think there'd be an urgent reason why another 4-5bn were needed?

    There's never enough money. No matter how much you give more could always be used.
    20bn was a five year plan
  • I see the PB Tories are at the tribally defensive part of the various stages of a Tory budget.

    Nah just enjoy pointing out the economic illiteracy of some people.

    "Saving thousands in up front costs won't help you save for a deposit" has to be the dumbest attack line against a budget I've ever seen.
  • calum said:
    SCons MORE enthusiastic than the SNP about a single police force? Well, blow me down with a feather.
  • Mr. Divvie, I got thrown out of the PB Tory Club (I forget why), but the Budget so far seems fine. Yeah, it's bland. I'll take bland. It's miles better than I was expecting.
  • calum said:
    SCons MORE enthusiastic than the SNP about a single police force? Well, blow me down with a feather.
    Yeah but if the SCons were in Holyrood they'd have made sure that the VAT issue was dealt with at the time rather than just plowing on ahead and then moaning about VAT which was known to be an issue.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,228
    Fenster said:

    Gotcha Journalism.

    Faisal Islam is one of the worst for it. They are all busting for a 'gotcha' headline.

    None of the dxcitable, group-thinky young journos get out of the bubble enough*.

    Pasty Tax and Dementia Tax headlines worked because they were taxes. I can't see this Stamp Duty stuff creating negative headlines because the govt is getting rid of a tax.

    Hammond is still boring though. Too cautious and managerial for me.

    *This is why I think Matthew Parris is a great read. His vehement anti-Brexit stance is effective because a) he's a Tory, b) he is worldly and c) he has a principled history of swimming against the tide.

    c) literally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10840475
  • Somebody reboot the Scott_n_Paste Bot it's repeating itself.
This discussion has been closed.