Autumn Statement - Predictions and results

CLAPTON

SailorSam wrote: »

The Bbc offer excellent value for money. Some of the programmes they produce are going to cost you a lot more to watch if left to the 'paid' channels.
Radio, particularly local radio can be the only company that many people have, without it would leave them alone with no contact to the outside world. To many the presenters are the only friends they have.

bizarre

most 'local' radio programs aren't produced by the BBC
I have no problem in funding a BBC costing 1/10 the of the current rate as I see no reason why I should pay for soaps and other trivia.

chucknorris

chris_m wrote: »

What's wrong with wine?
It's made from grapes so doesn't it count as one of your "five a day"?

If you are correct, I will live much longer. I've used the same joke myself (when I used to drink cider, = apples).

Mistermeaner

vodka = potatoes

chucknorris

mwpt wrote: »

I don't want my tax rates cut. It would be nice if they were maintained, but the reality is that we are never going to get to a surplus or even run a stable deficit (vs GDP growth) without increased taxation.

Spend on planning permission. Tax on land banking. Force builders to build or sell the land to those of us who would.

Also my position, I'm happy with paying a bit more, I just don't want to be massively hit by tax changes.

This doesn't affect me at all, but any tax on land banking should recognise that developers need to have a land bank to plan their future workload for a few years. They can't leave it to luck and hope they can buy suitable land 'just in time', they need to know that they have enough land to build for the next few years. I think they already risk losing planning permission or at least incur additional planning fees, if they leave it for more than 5 years since planning permission was granted.

mwpt

chucknorris wrote: »

A
This doesn't affect me at all, but any tax on land banking should recognise that developers need to have a land bank to plan their future workload for a few years. They can't leave it to luck and hope they can buy suitable land 'just in time', they need to know that they have enough land to build for the next few years. I think they already risk losing planning permission or at least incur additional planning fees, if they leave it for more than 5 years since planning permission was granted.

I agree. Five years seems reasonable, but it should also apply to land that has the potential for planning permission. And it should actually be enforced, not just a risk of being enforced.

EDIT: I thought about what I typed a bit further and see that it would be very hard to determine what is land banking and what isn't (without planning permission).

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

I agree. Five years seems reasonable, but it should also apply to land that has the potential for planning permission. And it should actually be enforced, not just a risk of being enforced.

EDIT: I thought about what I typed a bit further and see that it would be very hard to determine what is land banking and what isn't (without planning permission).

I live in a house : it has the potential for planning permission (as do 99.99999% of all houses)
would this mean that I could lose my house after 5 years of not developing it?

Chickereeeee

CLAPTON wrote: »

I have no problem in funding a BBC costing 1/10 the of the current rate as I see no reason why I should pay for soaps and other trivia.

If the BBC did not do soaps, talent shows and other 'trivia'/popular programs, they would be accused of elitism, and not catering for the majority of the nation. The majority would then be saying 'why should I pay for something I dont watch?'

The BBC provide the best VFM anywhere, in my opinion.

I would like to see SKY have to pay the BBC for being allowed to transmit their channels, rather than the BBC paying Sky (as is currently the case). If the BBC where not on Sky, I think Sky would lose a LOT of viewers....

C

chucknorris

It is being covered on BBC2 now, does anyone know when Osborne's actual announcements start?

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

I live in a house : it has the potential for planning permission (as do 99.99999% of all houses)
would this mean that I could lose my house after 5 years of not developing it?

No, because it's obviously not land banking. I said it would be difficult to determine. Could you suggest a method?

CLAPTON

Chickereeeee wrote: »

If the BBC did not do soaps, talent shows and other 'trivia'/popular programs, they would be accused of elitism, and not catering for the majority of the nation. The majority would then be saying 'why should I pay for something I dont watch?'

The BBC provide the best VFM anywhere, in my opinion.

I would like to see SKY have to pay the BBC for being allowed to transmit their channels, rather than the BBC paying Sky (as is currently the case). If the BBC where not on Sky, I think Sky would lose a LOT of viewers....

C

Yes, I agree with you

we ought to abolish the BBC altogether ; then it couldn't be accused of elitism