|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mansion tax
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
I was on the verge of getting my thoughts on this together when Tubbs (in a spot-on piece mostly about St Bob) conveniently goes and posts this in Hell:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
And whilst I’m here … Mylanne Klass …That big meanie Ed Milliband wants to tax expensive houses to help pay for the NHS. But £12m will only buy you garbage in central London. And you’re expected to pay tax on that? OMFG! Maybe Bob could do something for celebs in need so they know it’s Christmas too.
From what I've heard Ms Claas could have expressed herself more tactfully, but the point she made is still valid. My biggest problem with the mansion tax is that tax should be on money that has been earned, past tense. I'm not defending millionaires who can be expected to dig deep - that goes with being a millionaire. But it seems to me that the tax is a blunt instrument. There are retired people who were lucky enough to buy cheaply and lift thriftily and find that the house they bought for 2/6 in 1960 is now worth millions. The question is not only why should they be expected to cough up, but where they should be expected to cough up from?
According to the Beeb people who have a taxable property but are in the basic tax rate can defer until the property changes hands. Which is a good start to meet this criticism - but they here's a thought, why not just tax the people who are already rich enough to make that purchase?
As Tubbs adds:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Alternatively, George could tackle the deficit by showing the same enthusiasm for kicking the crap about of tax dodgers and avoiders as he does towards the poor and needy.
To which I can only add: damn right.
What do shipmates think?
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
According to the Beeb people who have a taxable property but are in the basic tax rate can defer until the property changes hands. Which is a good start to meet this criticism - but they here's a thought, why not just tax the people who are already rich enough to make that purchase?
Doesn't this deferment essentially do that? Conventional wisdom is that a tax assessed at time of sale will usually be passed along to the purchaser, either as a condition of sale or as an increase in price. Why wouldn't that be the case here?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Here's a thought. Tax unearned wealth at a higher rate than earned wealth.
If you live in a house that earns more than you do, then there's no reason why that wealth shouldn't be taxed.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Here's a thought. Tax unearned wealth at a higher rate than earned wealth.
If you live in a house that earns more than you do, then there's no reason why that wealth shouldn't be taxed.
So a parent or grandparent shouldn't work hard in order to provide for their offspring? Just give it all to the state, they know better how to spend it than you do.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Here's a thought. Tax unearned wealth at a higher rate than earned wealth.
If you live in a house that earns more than you do, then there's no reason why that wealth shouldn't be taxed.
So a parent or grandparent shouldn't work hard in order to provide for their offspring? Just give it all to the state, they know better how to spend it than you do.
Okay, let's unpick that a little. Did the 5th Duke of Westminster work hard in order to provide for his son, the 6th Duke of Westminster? Do you think that inheriting half of London, Oxfordshire and Scotland, and then managing not to spend it all on hookers, cards and drugs counts as hard work?
Or did you mean some other sort of hard work?
(eta - unearned wealth, by its very definition, isn't the result of hard work. Earning money by living in a house is not hard work.)
[ 19. November 2014, 13:51: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
]Okay, let's unpick that a little. Did the 5th Duke of Westminster work hard in order to provide for his son, the 6th Duke of Westminster? Do you think that inheriting half of London, Oxfordshire and Scotland, and then managing not to spend it all on hookers, cards and drugs counts as hard work?
Or did you mean some other sort of hard work?
I'm American and find the landed gentry thing to be fairly ridiculous. But these are not the people, in the main, who have £2m mansions in London. It's largely people who made money in industries that people don't like (i.e. banking), and filthy rich people from abroad who see a big house in London as a safe, long-term asset.
I don't see why the children of these people should fear that if they choose to work in non-profits or teaching or nursing, that they don't be able to continue living in their family home that was purchased when times were good because they'll have additional taxes to pay.
You can get at these people's wealth in other ways - changes to capital gains and bonus taxes, additional levies on overseas investors in property, etc.
Essentially the mansion tax is an admission that there has been under taxation of wealthy people for the past 15-20 years and since it's impossible to tax retroactively, going after their homes is the only option.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Essentially the mansion tax is an admission that there has been under taxation of wealthy people for the past 15-20 years and since it's impossible to tax retroactively, going after their homes is the only option.
It's an admission that getting anything out of wealthy people is difficult because they're very good at hiding their money. But even they cannot hide property - so that's what we have to tax.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Also, the idea that these are 'homes' in any sense of the word is slightly odd. These are tangible property investments, and need to be treated as such.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
So a parent or grandparent shouldn't work hard in order to provide for their offspring? Just give it all to the state, they know better how to spend it than you do.
Some kind of taxation is both inevitable and desirable. Even libertarians concede that we need a police force to protect property rights from the ravening proletarian hordes of moochers. So the question becomes how taxation is to be raised. I'm not sure why charging a levy on people who live in houses worth £2m is seen as some dastardly assault on private property, whereas taking PAYE from the woman stacking shelves at Tescos or the bloke at the till at MacDonalds is seen as part of the order of things. Notoriously, at present in the UK, it is possible to be as rich as Croesus (the Lydian king, not the Shipmate) and pay less tax than one's cleaner. It strikes me that fair taxation is taxation which is proportionate to one's ability to pay. In which case a Mansion Tax strikes me as being a step in the right direction.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I don't see why the children of these people should fear that if they choose to work in non-profits or teaching or nursing, that they don't be able to continue living in their family home that was purchased when times were good because they'll have additional taxes to pay.
Which would be about 250 pounds a month to live (presumably otherwise rent free) in one of the more salubrious parts of London, which has usually been improved fairly significantly by large amounts of public investment.
I presume most people who work as nurses or teachers in London spend significantly more than that to live in significantly smaller houses.
quote:
Essentially the mansion tax is an admission that there has been under taxation of wealthy people for the past 15-20 years and since it's impossible to tax retroactively, going after their homes is the only option.
To an extent, and at the same time the wealthy have become adapt at avoiding taxes by use of various financial vehicles, so it is easier to tax what is visible.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's an admission that getting anything out of wealthy people is difficult because they're very good at hiding their money. But even they cannot hide property - so that's what we have to tax.
How is it hard to tax capital gains or bonuses?
How is it hard to charge foreign property investors additional taxes when they purchase property? Not in perpetuity - at the point of purchase.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is not a clean issue, mansion tax.
On one side, property is an asset. Money or debt in a bank. So taxing the revenue from the sale of such makes sense.
The other side though, is losing the family home. It would make more sense if such a tax considered the income of the receiver of said property.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
We're back here to what some of us were saying in the "London" thread a couple of weeks ago - that for politicians, if something's a problem for London, then it's a problem, but if something's only a problem in the rest of the country, then sod it.
£2million even in most parts of London (outside Kensington & Chelsea) will still buy you a lot of house. I've an acquaintance whose generously proportioned flat in Westminster is valued at under a million. But that aside, if you came to Manchester with your two million quid, it could literally buy you a street.
So stuff London. Tax the rich.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you live in a house that earns more than you do, then there's no reason why that wealth shouldn't be taxed.
That works if the "earning" results in an identifiable sum of money in a bank account somewhere. A percentage can be sliced off and sent to the nice taxman.
If the "earning" is just a slightly bigger number written on a piece of paper then the only way to turn that into money for the taxman is to sell the property or take out a loan on it. If you sell then, fair enough, pass it onto the buyer (as pointed out by Croesos, assuming you can find a buyer who isn't put off by the inflated sum required) but why should you be stuck with a loan you didn't want?
I've no problem with taxing inheritances, because the inheritee hopefully has their own affairs already in order: everything they receive from the Dear Departed is a bonus. So, bleed the Westminsters until they're white.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not a clean issue, mansion tax.
On one side, property is an asset. Money or debt in a bank. So taxing the revenue from the sale of such makes sense.
The other side though, is losing the family home. It would make more sense if such a tax considered the income of the receiver of said property.
Why would someone lose the family home? The legislation would defer the tax for people on low incomes - which was presumably Myleene Klass's point about little grannies in expensive houses.
Interesting also that thousands of people have had to move house because of the bedroom tax - I wonder if Klass will campaign for them?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think there is a strong point for the mansion tax - the very wealthy who can afford to buy and keep such properties should be contributing to the exchequer more.
But it is a difficult one, because property prices are not comparable across the country. We will soon be property millionaires, despite the fact that I will not have earned a million in salary in my lifetime. One of my properties is my pension investment, and is rented out at under market value to someone who needs it. Out main house will be a 4 bed property, not an exceptional size. It just happens to be in a very nice area.
Maybe the answer is to raise stamp duty, so that when a million pound or more property is bought, the buyers will have to stump up more tax. Of course, this will then cause some slowing of the property market - not in itself a bad thing, but some will suffer from this.
In the end, I would prefer that a) big corporations paid all of their reasonable tax and b) bankers who break the system should not get bonuses.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Did the 5th Duke of Westminster work hard in order to provide for his son, the 6th Duke of Westminster? Do you think that inheriting half of London, Oxfordshire and Scotland, and then managing not to spend it all on hookers, cards and drugs counts as hard work?
Or did you mean some other sort of hard work?
(eta - unearned wealth, by its very definition, isn't the result of hard work. Earning money by living in a house is not hard work.)
What makes you think he didn't? I can't imagine that estate management is easy. After all, plenty of estates have gone to the wall over the years.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not a clean issue, mansion tax.
On one side, property is an asset. Money or debt in a bank. So taxing the revenue from the sale of such makes sense.
The other side though, is losing the family home. It would make more sense if such a tax considered the income of the receiver of said property.
Why would someone lose the family home? The legislation would defer the tax for people on low incomes - which was presumably Myleene Klass's point about little grannies in expensive houses.
Interesting also that thousands of people have had to move house because of the bedroom tax - I wonder if Klass will campaign for them?
Doesn't the tax come into effect when the property changes hands? Like inheriting it?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If I recall correctly there was an investigation into Bernie Ecclestone (guess that's who this relates to) and HMRC settled for something far less than what they believe he owed. HMRC therefore is to blame, not a lack of a mansion tax.
That was specifically to your question as to how difficult it could possibly be to tax capital gains and bonuses.
HMRC do seem to run a multi-tier system, however they also don't have infinite resources to untangle every tax avoidance scheme. The reasons big businesses (and wealthy individuals) are able to pay less tax than they should is that they are frequently able to raise the cost of getting that tax to unattractive levels.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
In the UK until the 1950's there was an additional form of income tax under Schedule A. This was based on Imputed Rent and was a tax based on the increase in value of owned property in a year. It was discontinued in the UK, to encourage home ownership (and boy are we paying for that!) although it continues elsewhere, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands.
As far as 'Mansion Tax' is concerned, why stop at houses? Wealth is like manure: if it's spread around, it helps things grow. If it's piled up, it just stinks.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Yes! Why should their money be immune to tax when other people who don't have the money to save as much have to pay taxes?
I've always wondered why earned income is subject to more deductions, in the form of income tax and NI contributions, than unearned income and capital gains. Something to do with the preponderance of older, better-off people in parliament.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Yes! Why should their money be immune to tax when other people who don't have the money to save as much have to pay taxes?
I've always wondered why earned income is subject to more deductions, in the form of income tax and NI contributions, than unearned income and capital gains. Something to do with the preponderance of older, better-off people in parliament.
Isn't it also a lot easier to collect? PAYE and VAT just nab it at source. I wonder if unearned income can mysteriously disappear into thin air, with the right accountants, and some offshore jiggerypokery.
Well, let's face it, tax is for the little people.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
We're back here to what some of us were saying in the "London" thread a couple of weeks ago - that for politicians, if something's a problem for London, then it's a problem, but if something's only a problem in the rest of the country, then sod it.
£2million even in most parts of London (outside Kensington & Chelsea) will still buy you a lot of house. I've an acquaintance whose generously proportioned flat in Westminster is valued at under a million. But that aside, if you came to Manchester with your two million quid, it could literally buy you a street.
So stuff London. Tax the rich.
But in some parts of Kensington & Chelsea, the people living in these flats worth £2 million+ are renting them; so who pays the "mansion tax": the Cadogan estate or whoever owns the freehold; the landlord who owns the leasehold or the tenant who lives in it? I suspect that most tenants would notice an extra £250 a month going out...
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What makes you think he didn't? I can't imagine that estate management is easy. After all, plenty of estates have gone to the wall over the years.
The owners rarely manage the estates themselves. Indeed, the Duke of Argyll gets really pissed off if people try to get him involved in decisions made by his managers (who tend toward being skeevy money grabbing heartless bastards, as is traditional). He owns something like 98% of the land around here. Besides, even if the Duke of Argyll mismanages the estate and pisses half of it up the wall, he's still one of the wealthiest people in the country without having done anything of note to achieve it.
[code]
[ 19. November 2014, 20:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Okay, so tell me again why all of you are so incredibly worried about adding a bit more tax onto people who are rich enough to buy a £2million plus house and own half a county?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
I'm more worried that Ed M was wrong footed (or at least has been portrayed as such) by the question
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What did Jesus' hard man do to he who buried His wealth?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so tell me again why all of you are so incredibly worried about adding a bit more tax onto people who are rich enough to buy a £2million plus house and own half a county?
I'd like to be able to say that I don't want to be out of pocket.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so tell me again why all of you are so incredibly worried about adding a bit more tax onto people who are rich enough to buy a £2million plus house and own half a county?
I'd like to be able to say that I don't want to be out of pocket.
Plenty of benefits recipients are out of pocket through simply having a room more than the state deems necessary! You could give it another name but it has the same effect as a 'mansion tax'.
[ 19. November 2014, 22:26: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so tell me again why all of you are so incredibly worried about adding a bit more tax onto people who are rich enough to buy a £2million plus house and own half a county?
I'd like to be able to say that I don't want to be out of pocket.
But I'm guessing that isn't going to be the case, right?
So - what's the principle behind your opposition to it? My principle for it is that firstly, unearned wealth should be taxed at least as much as earned wealth, and secondly, land and/or property derives value outside of itself, value which we (the taxpayer) have created and should be recompensed for.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
and secondly, land and/or property derives value outside of itself, value which we (the taxpayer) have created and should be recompensed for.
I could happily get behind proposals for a land value tax. The so-called "mansion tax" proposals are very far from a sensible land value tax.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so tell me again why all of you are so incredibly worried about adding a bit more tax onto people who are rich enough to buy a £2million plus house and own half a county?
Because taxes tend to move in one direction - higher and broader. Look at the air passenger duty - when it started the highest rate was £40, now it's £194. Look at when VAT was "temporarily" raised to 20%, it hasn't come down. You can't buy any house in London below the stamp duty threshold.
I'd support a wealth tax on all assets in Britain, no loopholes or exclusions. If you receive earned income and pay income tax, you can exclude the property that you live in. If you don't, you pay maybe 2% on £2m and ratchet it up slightly to £5m and up. Levy it on the owners of the properties regardless of where they are based (or if they are shell companies) and enforce it.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Because taxes tend to move in one direction - higher and broader.
Except for all the very substantial tax cuts introduced for very rich people, and the lower rates already imposed on unearned income, I suppose.
Given that Stamp Duty starts at £125k, there are a great many properties even in the grim post-industrial north that get that charge. No one particularly likes taxes, I understand that. But no one likes dying in a dark, pot-holed street at night because there are no street lights, road crews, ambulances, paramedics, nurses, doctors or hospitals, either.
Somehow, the very, very rich have managed to convince sufficient numbers of us that taxes are bad, and they (alone) should be exempt. I find this quite extraordinary, and if I was an external observer, I'd applaud the their audacity.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Somehow, the very, very rich have managed to convince sufficient numbers of us that taxes are bad, and they (alone) should be exempt. I find this quite extraordinary, and if I was an external observer, I'd applaud the their audacity.
No, Doc Tor, it's that some of us understand economics.
How much tax revenue do you get from rich, internationally mobile people, if they avoid it? None. Why do they avoid it? Because they think the rate is too high and they shop around for a jurisdiction with a lower rate. Making taxes higher in Britain just makes more British wealthy people put their money in Singapore or Mauritius.
Can you address my previous suggestion of a flat wealth tax?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Somehow, the very, very rich have managed to convince sufficient numbers of us that taxes are bad, and they (alone) should be exempt. I find this quite extraordinary, and if I was an external observer, I'd applaud the their audacity.
No, Doc Tor, it's that some of us understand economics.
Thank you, Milton Friedman.
quote:
How much tax revenue do you get from rich, internationally mobile people, if they avoid it? None. Why do they avoid it? Because they think the rate is too high and they shop around for a jurisdiction with a lower rate. Making taxes higher in Britain just makes more British wealthy people put their money in Singapore or Mauritius.
I'm sorry, I thought you said you understood economics.
On one hand, you say you want rich, internationally mobile people to live in this country. On the other, you admit that we get no tax from them. Is that because you like watching their limos drive by on the roads you've paid for? Because otherwise, you derive no benefit from them being here whatsoever.
quote:
Can you address my previous suggestion of a flat wealth tax?
Flat taxes are entirely regressive, and do not benefit anyone but the very rich.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
So your concern is the percent of income paid in tax, not the absolute amount? It's not fair for someone to pay 10% tax even if the revenue to HMRC on that is £100,000 a year?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
How much tax revenue do you get from rich, internationally mobile people, if they avoid it? None. Why do they avoid it? Because they think the rate is too high and they shop around for a jurisdiction with a lower rate. Making taxes higher in Britain just makes more British wealthy people put their money in Singapore or Mauritius.
So in a previous post you say we should tax wealth, yet here you admit we can't. So long as there is any jurisdiction where taxes were lower than the UK at least some people would move their money there. Similarly you prescription in your last post that only people not earning an income be subject to 'mansion tax' would lead to a cottage industry of the rich being employed as the representative of a british arm of a business that was registered in the Dutch Antilles or whatever.
Still there are things that we could tax - note that there isn't a huge of exodus of the rich moving to these lower tax jurisdictions - so at least some of their consumption will remain in large world cities (like London) where they like to be seen.
I'm not a huge fan of the mansion tax purely because it could trivialise the issue. I've not seen many coherent arguments against it though (least of all talk of 2m pound garages and impoverished grannies living in Georgian houses in K&C)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so tell me again why all of you are so incredibly worried about adding a bit more tax onto people who are rich enough to buy a £2million plus house and own half a county?
I'd like to be able to say that I don't want to be out of pocket.
But I'm guessing that isn't going to be the case, right?
So - what's the principle behind your opposition to it? My principle for it is that firstly, unearned wealth should be taxed at least as much as earned wealth, and secondly, land and/or property derives value outside of itself, value which we (the taxpayer) have created and should be recompensed for.
The prime reason why I am against it is that it is unnecessary. We have enough taxes in this country. By that I don't necessarily mean that the level of taxation is high enough - that's another debate - but that the number of different ways to tax people is enough without having to add yet another one which will doubtless necessitate HMRC employing more people at...er...taxpayers' expense.
If you want to tax real estate then there are plenty of existing taxes to choose from: CGT, SDLT, Iht (the latter to a degree at least), income tax on rental incomes, etc. If you want to increase the level of taxation on real estate then increase the rates on all or some of the above. Above all, bloody enforce the existing system! No need to introduce a brand new tax which is more about posturing as it is about sensible economic policy and which is likely to be something of a blunt instrument and have unintended consequences in high-expense property areas.
[ 20. November 2014, 09:02: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So your concern is the percent of income paid in tax, not the absolute amount? It's not fair for someone to pay 10% tax even if the revenue to HMRC on that is £100,000 a year?
If they 'earn' a million and pay a net 10% while those who earn £50 thousand pay at a net 20% then yes, it's not fair.
Moreover, anyone on 50K pays a lot more in indirect taxation than someone on a million as a proportion of income, making taxes like VAT and petrol duty highly regressive.
(eta: TBH I'd like a flat rate tax of about 50% with much higher personal allowances but far fewer loopholes)
[ 20. November 2014, 09:03: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So your concern is the percent of income paid in tax, not the absolute amount? It's not fair for someone to pay 10% tax even if the revenue to HMRC on that is £100,000 a year?
I think it's entirely appropriate for the HMRC to make a tactical decision to pursue some forms of evasion and not others based on the resources they have available to them.
At the same time I think it's entirely correct for the government to make the strategic decision that people should contribute to society according to their ability to do so. There are plenty of ways in which those who are rich benefit - in monetary terms - far more than on the poor from things like; the rule of law, legal institutions, intellectual property rights and the police. To a large extent those tax havens also remain law abiding because of the global reach of developed nation states.
And no .. I don't think we are on the far side of the Laffler Curve.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The prime reason why I am against it is that it is unnecessary. We have enough taxes in this country.
A properly levied LVT - one that rich people can't avoid - should mean we can do away with many of the taxes - CGT, IHT, etc - that they avoid already, and allow the tax inspectors to concentrate on two important things: who owns this piece of land and what is its value?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So in a previous post you say we should tax wealth, yet here you admit we can't. So long as there is any jurisdiction where taxes were lower than the UK at least some people would move their money there.
You can tax physical assets here in Britain. That may include property but is not limited to it. You can't hide a house in London in a Caribbean tax haven. If it's here in this country, it should be taxed.
What I don't want is a tax on anyone who lives in an expensive house, if those people already pay income taxes through their salaries. A tax to get revenue from people who own assets in Britain but do not have income here is what is necessary.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What I don't want is a tax on anyone who lives in an expensive house, if those people already pay income taxes through their salaries. A tax to get revenue from people who own assets in Britain but do not have income here is what is necessary.
That won't work, as has already been explained. People can manufacture shell jobs as easily as shell companies.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
On one hand, you say you want rich, internationally mobile people to live in this country. On the other, you admit that we get no tax from them. Is that because you like watching their limos drive by on the roads you've paid for? Because otherwise, you derive no benefit from them being here whatsoever.
Don't you have a VAT, ie a tax on consumption of goods and services? Therefore, if you reside in the UK and you buy a limousine in the UK (or even import a limo), don't you pay tax on the purchase?
If you own a property that you don't live in, don't you pay tax on the rental income derived from that property? Isn't that paying tax on property?
If you pay tax on unrealised income, ie the increase in the value of an asset that remains in your portfolio, when the stock market or property market crashes should you be able to get a tax deduction or refund for unrealised losses?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What I don't want is a tax on anyone who lives in an expensive house, if those people already pay income taxes through their salaries. A tax to get revenue from people who own assets in Britain but do not have income here is what is necessary.
That won't work, as has already been explained. People can manufacture shell jobs as easily as shell companies.
A shell company is totally irrelevant - whoever/whatever is the owner of the asset pays the tax. HMRC seizes property when taxes aren't paid.
My suggestion was to exclude the property you live in, if you earn an income in Britain. I used to work with a guy whose dad owned three flats in Knightsbridge - one for himself and one each for his son and daughter. Each one might not be £2m but totalled up you'd get that wealth tax on his combined assets and have something to tax him on - better than a mansion tax it would seem to me.
I think you're just being argumentative, my proposal seems to target the same people you want to target and more directly than a tax on house prices.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
