Member Info for asimpleinvestor

There are no rules for main market shares, so they can remain suspended indefinitely. AIM shares, on the other hand, are delisted after six months, which is probably where the confusion comes from. It easier to just clear things up than to post without purpose all day.

They have one too, the nearest mains pipe is two miles away.

Note to self: Don't go out on to the patio in your bare feet

33C outside now and the plants are under heat stress even with watering (no ban here we have our own suppies).

@Gerry557 It depends on whether you mean "taxpayers" or "billpayers."

The upfront capital for major water infrastructure projects comes from private corporate finance and foreign investment, not the Treasury. If we relied solely on central government tax receipts to build everything, the national debt would skyrocket and nothing would get delivered.

However, it doesn’t cost the public nothing. The regulatory system ensures that while private investors inject the billions needed for upgrades upfront, every penny of that investment plus an Ofwat-regulated return for the investors is slowly clawed back over decades directly through our household water bills. It spares the taxpayer and the government balance sheet at the point of construction, but the consumer always foots the ultimate bill.

Good progress, real oil revenue, strong helium percentages but the only number that actually matters (sustained flow rate) is still pending.

@Dorfan The legal liability sat squarely on the individual, not the parents or guardians, provided the student was 18 or over.

Full-time college and university students were given an 80% reduction, meaning they were personally liable to pay 20% of the local rate. Because it was an individual head tax, parents had zero legal obligation to pay their adult children's bills.

As for jail, the short answer is yes. Non-payment was a civil debt, but the enforcement process was brutal. If someone defaulted, the council would get a liability order to deduct money from wages or benefits, or send bailiffs to seize goods. If the individual had no income to deduct and no assets to seize which was exactly the case for most cash-poor students the final legal recourse for "wilful refusal or culpable neglect" was a prison sentence of up to three months.

Thousands of people were summonsed to court, and a significant number of non-payers including young adults were indeed sent to prison before the system collapsed and was abandoned. I would have thought you were of an age to remember those days it was less than 35 years ago

@Dorfan We haven't had a genuine "special relationship" with the US for decades it has been nothing more than political lip service. If anything, recent shifts in Washington have shown they are increasingly becoming a security and economic liability rather than a reliable ally. We haven't had any preferential deals; they are purely transactional and have always had strings of compliance attached.

The reality of the dynamic is simple: if the US wants something and the UK complies, we get a pat on the head and told we're a good boy. If we dare say no, we are met with unilateral tariffs and ignored. That is the true nature of our current relationship.

If Burnham has genuinely burnt bridges by refusing to play along with that one-sided arrangement, then it sounds like he might actually be demonstrating real leadership for a change.

@SRBS Under the current system it doesn't matter if you own your property or rent it you still have a council tax bill to pay. Ours is a Band D property and costs £3460 per year, if we lived in Chelsea, it would be £1,643.44 or £1,047.85 in Westminster the two most expensive boroughs by property value in London. If we didn't rent out the main house on the farm it would be £4,962.70 but currently thats the responsibility of the tenant. Under the proposed rules and calculation, the cost would fall on me and would equate to £38,400per year if we don't manage to sell it first.

@Dorfan Poll tax started at age 18, and if you were unemployed and receiving benefits or on social security you were exempt. Most complaints came from working families with kids in college who had to pay. Back then, if you were unemployed, your rent, poll tax, and water rates were covered, and the only bills you had were for phone and electricity/gas, with most people on meters. Once someone got a job, all those costs kicked in, so many didn’t bother, which is why unemployment figures were so high at the time.

@Siggins Microns numbers were brilliant weren't they. Over a 16% rise and the markets aren't even open yet. Most of my tech stocks have bounced back because of those figures and not just in the US but in Japan, China and Taiwan too. It shows AI isn't dead yet.

@Bagzzz718 You forgot to include 12 months to complete it.

@spantrout Your reply answered my question about usefulness with the eloquence of a fool. Thanks. Green box for you.

@Dorfan It was an assumption on my part, and if indeed you weren't referring to the big smoke, I unreservedly apologise.

If, as you suggest, you are talking about the South of England rather than London, the data shows you would still likely find yourself better off under a Proportional Property Tax. Because council tax is currently so heavily distorted against lower-growth areas, any region outside of premium urban hotspots generally pays a higher percentage of their property's actual value than they should.

I missed your earlier point about living in an area that has seen very little transaction movement in 30 years. However, even if sales are rare, your council tax has steadily risen over that 30-year period while being anchored to an arbitrary 1991 band. Lack of local market movement usually suppresses automated valuation spikes, meaning under the proposed 0.48% system, your baseline valuation would remain steady and your actual savings would likely be even larger than you expect.

As for the Poll Tax, I was actually one of the few who thought it was a brilliant idea my own bill shrank by almost £600 at the time. My neighbour paid double what I paid because there were two adults in the household, so they fought tooth and nail to have it abolished. They too, however, were also saving almost £200 a year over the old system. When Council Tax was introduced to replace poll tax, their bill increased, as did mine, though I was single at the time so could claim the 25% single person discount. It is a strange quirk of human psychology that when a system is proposed that will actually save the majority of people money, they look at it with deep suspicion and fight it, yet they will happily accept far less efficient setups that cost them more just because they are familiar.

"Now property owners who has grafted hard to pay a deposit and pay off their mortgages will be burdened with a land tax"

So you prefer council tax instead because either way you still have a tax to pay for your local services. They don't come for free.

"Oil down , that helps. Second real hot day for Kernow coming up. Commiserations to those in the red/amber zone."

It has gotten so hot here that I was forced to reroute the air source heat pump from my workshop to my house so that we could reverse flow and use it for air conditioning. Its 10am and currently 18C in my home office and 26C outside. At 4pm yesterday it was 37C outside and at 4am when I got up 24C outside. I'm not going into my workshop today as its already past 30C in there.

"so your system won’t have anything to reference with."

First off, it's not my system it's the Proportional Property Tax (PPT) model backed by Burnham and the Fairer Share campaign.

Secondly, the algorithm doesn't care about house styles, upgraded kitchens, or luxury fixtures. The Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) used by lenders and the Land Registry look at the property type, square footage, and local transaction data for the postcode area.

While a completely derelict or structurally unsafe shell would fetch less on the open market and register a lower capital value, a standard three bed semi with basic 1970s décor will face the exact same baseline valuation as an identical three bed semi next door with a £40k kitchen extension and a hot tub. The automated system completely bypasses individual internal inspections, making it simple to reference and far fairer than sticking to council tax bands that haven't been updated since 1991.

@Oneknows I think you would be a tad negative too if your average was 0.6 and you held 192 million shares.

As ASI? I'm quite happy, its almost at my average if it drops below my average I'll be loading up and have the money set aside just for the situation. The fundamentals haven't changed so the drop is purely down to sentiment and sentiment changes with the tide.

I'm amazed anybody is against the idea, as for the vast majority of people it would mean your bill drops rather than rises. Under the current outdated system, the median household in the North and Midlands is stuck paying between 0.8% and 1.2% of their property's total value in council tax every year (with some lower value northern homes paying over 2%). Meanwhile, the South averages a much lighter load, and wealthy boroughs in London enjoy an effective tax rate of just 0.1% to 0.28% of their property's value. Shifting to a flat, nationwide proposed rate of 0.48% means an immediate, substantial tax cut for 75% of households across the country outside the capital.

The opportunity is there to save money, and people are up in arms, it's crazy! For those worried about asset rich but cash poor individuals, such as pensioners living in high value homes, the policy has built in protections: any initial annual increase is strictly capped at £1,200, and there is a legal option to defer the payment entirely until the property is next sold. The only people it would be truly detrimental to are people like me who own multiple properties and am a landlord, because the tax falls squarely on the property owner rather than the tenant. I think it's a far, far fairer system even though it will be vastly detrimental to my bank balance.