What? Has Idle turned pinko? Has he chucked the towel in on his Friedmanite beliefs? Did Laffer plot the curve upon his graph in vain?
Worry not, idle reader. I don't mean US, I mean THEM. There's local, home-grown rich; and then there's international, Johnny Foreigner rich. And it's Johnny I'm after.
Torygraph blog today:
"Nearly six in 10 overseas millionaires named residential property in London as their favourite asset class, according to Bill Siegle, a senior partner at international estate agents Cluttons. He said: “Quite remarkably, 43pc of these highly mobile investors state that the global financial crisis has had no impact on their view of London as a top investment target location. In fact, almost a third – or 29pc – goes on to claim that London is better-placed because of the Eurozone difficulties.
The fundamentals of the London economy remain strong; the city attracts dynamic businesses and skilled professionals from around the globe. This gravity effect underpins the city’s appeal to wealthy individuals looking for investment opportunities in the next 12 months.”
Well, we know what effect this has had on London property prices, and it has been vertiginous. Most importantly, it prices Londoners out of their own market. It makes no earthly sense to allow the international market unfettered access to our real estate if it is detrimental to one's own citizens.
So I say: TAX THEM TIL THEIR EYES WATER. And then tax them some more. If they are happy to pay 20% stamp duty to buy in London (and by THEY, I mean those who are not tax resident in this country), plus a 5% annual surcharge on top of their council tax, then one could review it and push it up to 30% and 7.5%. Etc, etc. My theory is that the Exchequer will receive a HUGE increase in tax take, whilst reducing the number of new foreign buyers. And if, one day, not only the Idle Tax, but political governance and property rights in their own godforsaken countries improving to a level that stops them from 'investing' in our capital - well, that'll be a jolly good day for London and the World, won't it?
I am a markets man, but I believe in intervention when it cures an obvious anomaly. This seems to me to be such an opportunity, and I can't for the life of me see any downside.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Click on the Book Cover
Read This Book
Click on the Book Cover
WS Churchill's Words of Warning:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves".
Too True
"That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era.”
Margaret Thatcher Statecraft (Published 2002)
Margaret Thatcher Statecraft (Published 2002)
The All-Time Best Daily Mash
Banking crisis caused by woman
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/banking-crisis-caused-by-woman--201105203842
On Limited Government
"We are a nation with a government, not the other way round".
Reagan, inaugural speech, Jan 20 1981
Reagan, inaugural speech, Jan 20 1981
(Interim) Last Word on the Subject
Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
Prof Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Atmospheric Brainbox of the World
Prof Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Atmospheric Brainbox of the World
Idolatry
Idle Reading
- Apricotfox
- Blue Eyes
- British Toastracks
- CityUnslicker
- Credit Writedowns
- Daniel Hannan
- Delingpole
- Drudge
- E-K
- Englishman's Castle
- Guido
- H Girl
- His Grace
- Lakelander
- Liddle
- Lil
- Norman Tebbit
- Political Betting
- Political Cartoons
- Politics Home
- Raedwald
- RealClearPolitics
- Scrobs
- Speccie
- Steyn
- The Corner
- The Daily Mash
- Theo Spark
- Thud
- Tuscan Tony
- Voyage to the Sargasso Sea
- Watts Up
- Wm Gruff
10 comments:
But what about the Scots after they go independent? :-)
No chance, Elby. Salmond's support may be a mile wide when it comes to elections in the current constitutional arrangement, but will prove to be less than 1mm deep when it comes to the independence vote.
They are sucking long and deep on English tax revenues, and do not want the teat to be snatched from their gums.
I like my free markets to be free.
Forget applying Stamp Duty, there is a huge time bomb being enacted right now, with the imposition of the Community Infrastructure Levy.
That really will create ghettos for the ultra rich...
Scrobs, you're correct. I suspect this is a result of lobbying by the big building firms, intended to shut down the burgeoning self-build sector - which it certainly will do.
It's getting no publicity, for some reason.
It's a council's hidden weapon to restrict any development they don't seem to want, Mr Yachtsman.
Sevenoaks, for example, are asking six figure sums on some planning applications, which makes the new house quite a bit more expensive...
Bristol wants £70.00 per square metre of building on hotels, so that adds over £200,000 to a new development, which may just make it unworkable in this current climate.
Wandsworth are asking for a staggering £575 per sq.m, so this means an average new house of - say - 120 sq.m. has an extra of £70,000 to cough up!
Luckily, there is so much disarray in most council's understanding of the implications, (they are only simple politicians, after all), that there will be a delay in the imposition, but as you say, once the publicity starts to roll, then expect howls of anguish from many quarters, including, I suspect, the builders you mention, but you're probably right in their complicity as well.
But who will the govt sell their property assets to and rent it back from? I think you'll find the govt will not want to diss the landlord.
said Pip
I've long advocated a tax on employers hiring unskilled foreign labour for the same reasons.
Immigration isn't, in fact, a cheap way of getting things done when the taxpayer's subsidies are brought into the reckonning.
This is anything but a 'free market' when we have a welfare system behind the whole charade.
Here we are at crisis point with Mr Osborne attempting to shave £10bn off the welfare bill.
Too right he has. I'm all for it.
But it can't be a one way street. The unskillled jobs in this land simply have to be freed up for the British citizen so that there can be a real differential between the incomes of the unemployed and the low paid.
This needs to be done as well as freeing up the housing.
Idle,
Indeed. Very funny to watch the reaction of the Left to the figures on how much funding the Scots require. Foot-stamping time :-)
Hey! I could have sworn I've been to this blog before but after reading through some of the post I realized it's
new to me. Nonetheless, I'm definitely happy I found it and I'll be book-marking and checking
back frequently!
my webpage ... Diet Plan For Women
Post a Comment