I saw this in my feed reader from the Conservative Cornerstone Group…
That little teaser sounds like the post could’ve been a chuckle, but it’s been removed for some reason.
Maybe Edward Leigh realised he was talking bollox as usual.
Stamp Duty FoI response
February 3rd, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink
I got a reply to my Freedom of Information request about stamp duty relief for first time buyers.
I asked…
- How much has HMRC spent in finding out if someone has previously bought a house or flat in the UK.
- How much has HMRC spent in finding out if someone has previously bought a house or flat anywhere else in the world.
- How much STLD has HMRC recovered from people who have claimed not to have previously owned a house or flat but have owned one in the UK
- How much STLD has HMRC recovered from people who have claimed not to have previously owned a house or flat but have owned one somewhere in the rest of the world.
- How many first time purchases have HMRC investigated whether the buyers have previously owned a house or flat?
- How many of these investigations have HMRC found people claiming not to have owned a house or flat have actually owned a house or flat a) in the UK and b) anywhere else in the world?
I didn’t get the figures I asked for. With regard to the first to questions about how much it has cost investigating whether a first time buyer is actually a first time buyer or not…
In response to parts 1 and 2, I am writing to advise you that following a review of our paper
and electronic records, I have established that HMRC does not hold the information you
requested.
I can confirm that HMRC’s SDLT investigation work is managed by a small central team that
co-ordinates resource drawn from across the Department – including solicitors, policy
advisers and specialists in anti-avoidance, compliance and investigation work. A central
record of data on the total number of staff addressing SDLT compliance work in respect of
first time buyers claim issues across these teams is not held.
…and the rest of my request is refused section 31, the qualified exemption rule, as it could give a clue as to the chances of getting caught.
I think this exemption is going a bit far for parts 3 and 4, how much HMRC has recovered, but without the rest of the information it doesn’t really mean much. It’s just a figure that has no scale to it.
I can see how revealing the amount of investigations HMRC has carried out and the amount of fraudulent first time buyers they’ve found could give away their success rate and so the chances of being caught.
The problem is, each piece of information is not really any use without the rest so, unless you guys can come up with a reason why HMRC should cough up then you’ve got till the beginning of April to let me know.
Plans for bi-annual MOT dropped
February 2nd, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink
Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary, has withdrawn plans to change MOTs from the current timings of the first MOT at three years and then annually thereafter, to four years and then bi-annually. This is A Good Thing.
The proposed reform was part of a Governmentwide drive to sweep away red tape in what was described as a “bonfire of regulations” aimed at stimulating business and economic growth.
I have no idea how reducing the amount of MOTs performed every year could be described as ‘reducing red tape’ to enable businesses to grow.
Obviously to perform this function on behalf of the government some requirements have to be met, somewhere secure to store the certificates, like the company safe, properly trained mechanics to perform the MOT itself and a bay with specific equipment required to carry out the MOT. The equipment can be fitted to an existing bay in the workshop that already has a vehicle lift or pit, and is something a good workshop will already have, and with proper maintenance will last for years. The mechanic with the paperwork to carry out MOTs does not get paid that much more than a mechanic without. The only real cost would be to send a mechanic a workshop already employs off to get his certificate. There really isn’t much ‘red tape’ at all.
In all my years of working professionally in vehicle workshops, not once has one been inspected by the ministry. Once the initial inspection has been done to grant the licence to carry out MOTs, garages are pretty much left to their own devices.
The only thing extending the period between MOTs would do is reduce the revenue from them, in terms of the actual MOT itself and also in the repair work that a failed MOT throws up, and that can’t really be considered helping businesses, can it?
The bigger issue though, is in vehicle safety. The MOT is an annual check to make sure the vehicle is roadworthy. For many people the MOT is the only time a car gets more than just the depth of tyre treads looked at.
Supporters of the change argued that cars were better built and more reliable than they were.
Cars may be better built and more reliable, but without proper maintenance, even a modern car can be dangerous. The cost of an MOT once a year, just under £60, is not a massive burden to a motorist and the twelve months period in between is a good time period. The test also has ‘advisory’ notices, not just pass or fail tick boxes. A ball joint is worn or some rust in the wrong place is getting serious but not serious enough to fail. This gets flagged to the owner as needing attention. The annual test puts a bit (just a bit) of impetus on the owner to get it fixed. A bi-annual test would reduce this even further.
In addition ministers were keen to be seen to be driver friendly by easing the financial burden at a time of soaring fuel prices.
Getting rid of a £60 cost once a year does nothing, except reduce the income of MOT test stations and increase the risk to everyone else from dangerous vehicles.
If ministers want to be seen to be doing something for the driver, then reducing the tax burden of fuel would be a good start, and not just not increasing the tax on it. A good example of getting rid of ‘red tape’ to the benefit of industry and customers are the new rules on block exemption…
The new rules introduce a 30% market share threshold above which agreements between car manufacturers and authorised repairers will no longer be block exempted, aligning the rules with the general framework (Vertical restraints block exemption Regulation 330/2010 adopted on 20 April, see IP/10/445 and MEMO/10/138). This will make it easier for the Commission to tackle possible abuses to the detriment of consumers, such as the refusal to grant independent repairers access to technical information. It will increase competition between authorised and independent repairers.
The new rules will strengthen repairers’ access to alternative spare parts which can represent a big share of the repair bills.
Car manufacturers will no longer be able to make the warranty conditional on having the oil changed or other car services only in authorised garages. Of course, manufacturers may request repairs covered by the warranty – and paid for by the manufacturer – be carried out within the authorised network.
More of this would be good, please.
An Early Day Motion? For *that*?
February 1st, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink
WTF?
An early day motion calling for the US government to slap the wrist of one of it’s talkshow hosts made a throw-away joke that featured the Sikh Golden Temple. BenSix reports…
Johnny Carson’s unfunny protege made a joke about Mitt Romney’s wealth a few days ago, which involved suggesting that the Sikh Golden Temple was his “summer house”. No biggie. Damn, I forgot! We’re living in a world where things that should be no biggy are treated like biggies – hugies, in fact. Indians are furious; a bloke is suing Leno and in England an MP has proposed this motion…
That this House notes with concern the sketch on the NBC Jay Leno Show where the most sacred Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple, was disrespected by Jay Leno when it was referred to as GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s summer home; expresses concern and regret that this depiction of the Golden Temple as a home of the rich shows a complete misunderstanding of the Sikh faith and is derogatory to Sikhs across the world; believes that these comments are not acceptable to all those who believe in respect for all religions; calls on Jay Leno and NBC to apologise to all Sikhs for this disrespectful depiction of the Golden Temple; and further calls on the Government to make representations to the US government that while recognising principles of freedom of speech there should be more understanding and respect shown to the Sikh faith.
There’s so much to laugh at here. The claim that it was a “depiction of the Golden Temple as a home for the rich” misunderstands the joke – it’s not “isn’t it funny that rich people live there” but “wouldn’t it be funny if they did”. The idea that Leno was implying something about the nature of the Temple itself suggests that viewers of a prime-time American talk show would be aware of what it was. I’m not the only one who thinks that’s funny, no? Then there’s the cry that his jests were not acceptable to those “who believe in respect for all religions”. Well, deal with it. The sponsors of the motion might feel that offending religious sensitivities is beyond the pale but that’s no reason to insist that we follow their lead. They don’t seem to have grasped this, though, as evidenced by their breathtaking call for our government to lecture a nation because of a wisecrack that one of its comedians voiced. I’m no fan of the U.S. state but I have to admit that they’d be richly justified in sending back a note that reads, quite simply, “GTFOI”. Depressingly, this motion has gained the support of 6 MPs: Virendra Sharma; Jeremy Corbyn; John McDonnell; Kelvin Hopkins; Alan Meale and Peter Bottomley. May the Gurus frown on them.
I like trucking
January 25th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink
Look at all those forrin’ trucks, coming over here, using our roads. Using them for free, too!
Foreign trucks don’t pay to use our roads we British drivers pay an annual fee to licence our vehicles to use them where as over in Europe they have a system of tolls. The British have a contract, with unlimited miles included, where as the Europeans have a Pay-as-You-Go system, if you like.
This, for us, is indeed not business friendly for the haulage industry, as the British vehicles have to subsidise the wear and tear, and damage done to the roads of foreign vehicles, whilst British hauliers, even if the vehicle is abroad the majority of the time, have to pay British road tax and all the tolls and charges of the European countries they visit.
So what’s the British government proposing?
A proposal to charge foreign-registered lorries up to £10 a day to drive on the UK’s roads is due to be outlined.
The government says the current system is unfair and is launching a consultation on the plan.
Foreign hauliers drive around the UK for free, while UK firms pay road tolls or daily rates to drive across Europe.
Legally, ministers cannot discriminate between UK and EU lorries so all trucks will be charged up to £10 a day, but British hauliers would get a refund.
That sounds fair enough, doesn’t it? Two things jumped out at me though.
The first is why complicate things with having this charge *and* road tax *and* giving a refund? It’s a recipe for disaster. Incorrect charging, missed refunds and all sorts. Why not simplify the system by getting rid of the road tax for commercial vehicles and apply the daily charge to *all* commercial vehicles in the UK? I understand this is just a proposal so they probably haven’t thought past the picking a daily figure out of their arse, but the more times money is passed back and forth, the more likely it is something will go wrong, and if it’s gonna go wrong it’s gonna be the haulier that will get fucked by late refunds and appeals and shit like that.
The second point is up to £10 a day! That is a huge amount. I would bet my hat that no commercial vehicle pays that amount at the moment. I realise this is just a proposal, and that it is *up to* £10 a day, but that is way out, even for a proposal that has been thrown out the door to see what reaction it gets.
The licencing of commercial vehicles is not the simplist of things, as there are so many different types of vehicles, and combinations of different types of vehicles with so many different uses. I had a quick squint at the direct.gov.uk website about the cost of licencing a HGV and the biggest charge for road tax on a truck was £2585 per annum. Have a look for yourself if you want, here. This works out to £7.08 per day for a very large load vehicle with no Reduced Pollution Certificate. For even bigger vehicles that tax wouldn’t go up much, and if fact dropps dramatically, because they are not used *all* the time or are just used for the beginning and end legs of journeies, where the middle bit of the journey is by rail of water.
For the more usual class of HGV (3 axle tractor, 2 axle trailer, with reduced pollution Certificate and road friendly suspension) the figure is twenty quid shy of £1600. This works out at £4.33 per day. Less that half of what could be charged under this proposal.
The UK cannot dicriminate between UK and foreign trucks, so the charge will have to be the same (for each class of vehicle) whether a UK truck or one from abroad, so it is not going to be simple case of collecting cash as the truck rolls off the ferry. Why make it more complicated with having the road tax and refunds in the mix?
This could be good. the extra cash raised from the foreign trucks, at no cost to UK ones, would help the government coffers. If the government was feeling generous (stop laughing at the back!) they could drop the daily rate, still have the same income (due to more trucks paying) and that would help lower some of the costs the UK haulage industry which is already struggling to keep it’s head above water due to fuel prices.
But if the government can’t even have a look to see what trucks are currently paying per day to go out on a policy proposal, then I can’t really see then doing this a) the best way or b) not fucking it up whichever way they decide to do it.
And no post about trucking would be complete without a song…
On Stamp Duty for first time buyers
January 9th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink
I was just looking at what the current rules for are for Stamp Duty and the obvious place to look is here.
First time buyers at the moment, I noticed, are getting a bit of a hand and instead of having to pay stamp duty from a purchase price of £125,000, don’t have to pay anything until the spend over £250,000.
Now, arguably, if you’re spending nearly £250k on your first home then you don’t really need that much of a hand onto the property ladder, but that isn’t the point of this post. What did catch my eye was the definition given for a first time buyer…
If you are a first-time buyer the threshold for when you start to pay SDLT is £250,000. This is only if you have never owned a house or flat in the UK or anywhere else in the world. If you are buying with someone else they must never have owned property before either. This higher threshold applies to purchases made on or after 25 March 2010 and before 25 March 2012.
A first time buyer is someone that hasn’t owned a house or flat. Anywhere. Not just in the UK, but worldwide.
How the fuck do HMRC know if someone has owned a house or flat anywhere other than the UK? I imagine some of this information gets onto the books via the land registry (obviously), tax returns and other things like that, or friendly foreign government agencies might help out, but do HMRC just take everyone at their word? Do they actually investigate to make sure they are fresh to the home-owning scene?
Wth this thought in my head I submitted a Freedom of Information request to them…
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
This request is regarding the Stamp Duty Land Tax relief currently available to first time buyers.
People buying house or flat for the first time on or after 25th March 2010 and before 25th March 2012 do not pay any SDLTX on a property with a purchase price of £250,000 or less.
See here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4015918
The definition of “first time buyer” is someone that has not owned a house or flat in the UK or anywhere else in the world.
What I would like to know is
1) How much has HMRC spent in finding out if someone has previously bought a house or flat in the UK.
2) How much has HMRC spent in finding out if someone has previously bought a house or flat anywhere else in the world.
3) How much STLD has HMRC recovered from people who have claimed not to have previously owned a house or flat but have owned one in the UK
4) How much STLD has HMRC recovered from people who have claimed not to have previously owned a house or flat but have owned one somewhere in the rest of the world.
5) How many first time purchases have HMRC investigated whether the buyers have previously owned a house or flat?
6) How many of these investigations have HMRC found people claiming not to have owned a house or flat have actually owned a house or flat a) in the UK and b) anywhere else in the workd?
Could you give the most upto date figures possible and broken down in to months, and for purchases in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
On asking shareholders to be responsible
January 8th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink
Further to my previous incoherent ramble on giving shareholders responsibility is this from episode 114 of The Pod Delusion about just how much shareholders can hold companies responsible.
Listen from 32 minutes and 50 seconds.
Both my rant and this Pod Delusion clip begs the question, just how much influence do share holders of massive companies have, exactly?
Giving shareholders clout
January 8th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink
(I’m on my phone so no links. Sorry)
If the government is going to try and make shareholder votes on executive pay binding why for the last fuck knows how long have all these thinktanks, committees and what not been telling us that all that’s needed to reign in excessive pay is for the shareholders to take responsibility and vote the pay deals down?
I didn’t know those votes weren’t binding, but then I’m not a boardroom expert. These other cunts put themselves forward as such and so are either lying wankers, bullshitters or incompetent.
We’re surrounded by cunts, we really are.
Driver drug tests makes drug taking illegal, apparently.
December 22nd, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink
I’ve just listened to Radio 1 for the first time in a looong time and Newsbeat came on.
They had a quick bit about roadside testing for drug-drivers and they featured a quote from some cunt from Transform.
On Newsbeats website, the story is featured but not with the quote from the Transform chap.
Now, I’ve not looked at the Transform website in any detail so I don’t know if the drugs policy changes they advocate are any good, so like wise I don’t know if they’re heroes or wankers, but this chap that featured on Newsbeat has a fucking weird grasp of logic.
I’m gonna paraphrase things here, but essentially he said that this idea to test drivers for drugs is ridiculous because it would basically criminalise using drugs and turn a whole heap of people into criminals.
What. The actual. Fuck?
First off, illegal drug taking is already all but illegal. It is illegal to sell and to possess controlled substances, and seeing as you can’t put anything in your body yourself without, however briefly possessing it, people that take illegal drugs are criminals already.
Secondly, how is it criminalising being under the influence of drugs? it is criminalising driving whilst under the influence of drugs. There is a *big* difference.
The obvious analogy is alcohol. The current drink-driving laws don’t make being boozed up illegal but they do make it illegal to drive with over a certain amount of alcohol in your blood.
Is this cunt seriously advocating repealing the drink-drive laws?
Whoever from Transform let this dickhead loose in front of a microphone must’ve been off their head.
Buttons
