homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Mansion tax (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Mansion tax
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Believe it or not, the 'Bedroom tax' also has that emotional tie to the home, but while the granny you mention has realisable assets the benefits climaants are unlikely to have the resources to do that.

While this might be a harsh way of looking at things, our hypothetical granny is living in her own home, whereas our hypothetical subject of the spare room subsidy isn't.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Believe it or not, the 'Bedroom tax' also has that emotional tie to the home, but while the granny you mention has realisable assets the benefits climaants are unlikely to have the resources to do that.

While this might be a harsh way of looking at things, our hypothetical granny is living in her own home, whereas our hypothetical subject of the spare room subsidy isn't.
Damn right it's harsh, but why a home owner short of funds should be treated more favourably than a benefits recipient short of funds escapes me for the moment.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because the latter's being funded out of Anglican't's taxes so he owns her ass, innit?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Believe it or not, the 'Bedroom tax' also has that emotional tie to the home, but while the granny you mention has realisable assets the benefits climaants are unlikely to have the resources to do that.

While this might be a harsh way of looking at things, our hypothetical granny is living in her own home, whereas our hypothetical subject of the spare room subsidy isn't.
So those who through no fault of their own have never been able to afford their own property are not allowed the security of a 'home' but instead are treated like parcels to be passed around?

There might be some sense to the 'bedroom tax' if it encouraged people living in too-large properties to move elsewhere. However in very many areas the majority of social housing is family homes of at least three bedrooms, so those in two=bedroom flats have nowhere to downsize to.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because the latter's being funded out of Anglican't's taxes so he owns her ass, innit?

I'm afraid that it is a little bit more spiritual than that. Private property is the true religion of the English, and probably the British. So the old lady in her house represents a deep and august sacrament for the English psyche - anathema upon him who dares sully it or impugn it!

Whereas the council house tenant is there at the pleasure of the state, or shall I say displeasure; and most of them lie in bed, watch Sky TV, own horrible dogs, and generally don't strive. It is always best to keep them on their toes, through the threat of eviction, short tenancies, and so on.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Whereas the council house tenant is there at the pleasure of the state, or shall I say displeasure; and most of them lie in bed, watch Sky TV, own horrible dogs, and generally don't strive. It is always best to keep them on their toes, through the threat of eviction, short tenancies, and so on.

Well that’s your spin on things, not mine.

But if someone is living in a house that’s owned by the state, and taking more bedrooms than he needs, doesn’t that contravene the whole ‘to each according to his need’ thing?

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Whereas the council house tenant is there at the pleasure of the state, or shall I say displeasure; and most of them lie in bed, watch Sky TV, own horrible dogs, and generally don't strive. It is always best to keep them on their toes, through the threat of eviction, short tenancies, and so on.

Well that’s your spin on things, not mine.

But if someone is living in a house that’s owned by the state, and taking more bedrooms than he needs, doesn’t that contravene the whole ‘to each according to his need’ thing?

Not really, if a more suitable property isn't available, which is the main problem with the bedroom tax. You make it sound like claimants are are saying "nah, I'll take the four bed, don't fancy the smaller flat."

[ 21. November 2014, 15:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And, don't forget, some of them drive white vans, and have England flags up at the window, as Ms Thornberry has helpfully shown us. Oh horror, horror, what chavvy little chavs they are, can't we find them a nice little bed in a shed somewhere?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174

 - Posted      Profile for itsarumdo     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting culture differences between here and Germany - in DE lots of people rent, and rental prices are far far lower than here in the UK. Even in e.g. Munich, I could rent a decent 2 bedroom flat easy travel distance from the centre for about £400/month

Partly to do with land values. Here the property market and land is a form of speculative asset, whereas in many parts of Europe that is limited to a few major cities. The idea of a mansion tax whilst continuing to buffer the property speculation is not unlike deriving tax from ciggies and alcohol.

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Any mansion tax is going to be unworkable for the simple reason that 99% of the country won't have property that falls into the £2,000,001 price range. same can be said of the welfare system as well.)

They won't stop at that.

Stamp duty used to be for the rich - not it's crept down to £130K - that's almost every house in the country.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Much as I would prefer the mansion tax to the bedroom tax, it is a flawed solution. It does seem a bit like Labour is seizing on an easy crowd-pleaser (like fox hunting?) instead of attacking the root of the problem. Taxing rich individuals and corporations should be the priority for any party concerned with social justice.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think the contemporary Labour party is in any mood to begin to tax the rich. After all, since Blair took them off into neo-liberalism, they have been dazed and bewildered. Thus, the reported tweet of the white van man in Rochester is indicative I think - that they don't know who they are or what they stand for, so an apparent chav is a target for amusement, or whatever.

The mansion tax isn't even their idea - I think Vince Cable came up with it.

I don't even think that Labour particularly wants to win the next election, do they?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Whereas the council house tenant is there at the pleasure of the state, or shall I say displeasure; and most of them lie in bed, watch Sky TV, own horrible dogs, and generally don't strive. It is always best to keep them on their toes, through the threat of eviction, short tenancies, and so on.

Well that’s your spin on things, not mine.

But if someone is living in a house that’s owned by the state, and taking more bedrooms than he needs, doesn’t that contravene the whole ‘to each according to his need’ thing?

I haven't heard of a scheme to help benefits claimants in homes larger than they need to move to smaller homes. Do let me know if there is one.

If the government was serious about wasted housing then it would do something about the 750,000 empty homes in England alone (I'd better shut up now or I'll be done for crusading).

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think the contemporary Labour party is in any mood to begin to tax the rich. After all, since Blair took them off into neo-liberalism, they have been dazed and bewildered. Thus, the reported tweet of the white van man in Rochester is indicative I think - that they don't know who they are or what they stand for, so an apparent chav is a target for amusement, or whatever.

The mansion tax isn't even their idea - I think Vince Cable came up with it.

I don't even think that Labour particularly wants to win the next election, do they?

Well, they elected Ed Miliband as leader; QED

--------------------
"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      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Any mansion tax is going to be unworkable for the simple reason that 99% of the country won't have property that falls into the £2,000,001 price range. same can be said of the welfare system as well.)

They won't stop at that.

Stamp duty used to be for the rich - not it's crept down to £130K - that's almost every house in the country.

As indeed was income tax. The Corn Laws on the other hand were a levy that benefitted the landed rich and penalised the poor, especially the urban poor.

--------------------
"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      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think the contemporary Labour party is in any mood to begin to tax the rich. After all, since Blair took them off into neo-liberalism, they have been dazed and bewildered. Thus, the reported tweet of the white van man in Rochester is indicative I think - that they don't know who they are or what they stand for, so an apparent chav is a target for amusement, or whatever.

The mansion tax isn't even their idea - I think Vince Cable came up with it.

I don't even think that Labour particularly wants to win the next election, do they?

Well, they elected Ed Miliband as leader; QED
Well, I think that's a symptom not a cause. The Thornberry tweet is quite revealing of their confusion. I think they've forgotten who they are, and what they stand for. They are still in a post-Blair hangover. What's even more amazing is that the Tories are not twenty points ahead.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Any mansion tax is going to be unworkable for the simple reason that 99% of the country won't have property that falls into the £2,000,001 price range. same can be said of the welfare system as well.)

They won't stop at that.

Stamp duty used to be for the rich - not it's crept down to £130K - that's almost every house in the country.

£125K in fact.

As you were

--------------------
"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
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Cole Porter's song was nothing at all to do with a quiz show, it was about choosing True Love over money - it was written for High Society and sung by Frank Sinatra and Celeste Holm.

Your bit about Richard Benyon MP is not quite correct.

No, I'm not an apologist for Mr Benyon but one should get one's facts right.

Thank you for more information than I had found in the media about Benyon. I suppose I should really be wondering just what the Lever family were doing selling New Era off.

And I was perfectly well aware that the song came from High Society. But the line was used for the quiz show, rather as the name Big Brother was used for a "reality" show, and I do feel that this cuts such phrases off from their roots so that for many people the secondary meaning becomes primary. The quiz show was about becoming rich, quite possibly encouraging envy, not about turning one's back on wealth for love, and thus not envying it.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

OK, so now we're getting somewhere.

Well yes. You have stopped repeating your arguments that a subset of nurses would be put off work by having to pay a tiny fraction of market rents in order to live in a house that is better than average. Or that someone rich would insist on being paid the market rate in order that they could then save on taxes.

quote:

The mansion tax as proposed would go after someone who bought a house in London in the 1970s and doesn't own any other major asset, but would totally miss out on a person from abroad who owns 5 flats in Chelsea, none of which is occupied. So it is wrong, in my view. The second person is wealthy, the first just bought property a long time ago.

It is surprising to me how many large houses are occupier by the mythical pensioner-on-a-breadline. Perhaps it's a good thing if such people move to the seaside, thus freeing up their houses to be used by hard working families who work in the city.

I find it difficult to get so excised about it. The support for a wealth tax (contrary to what you may think - is generally very low), if this shifts the Overton window, then I think it's a reasonable first step. It kicks in at a level of 250 per month after a threshold of 2M - which is approximately equivalent to the amount you'd pay in council tax for a house above £320K in many parts of the country. Council tax is capped - so one could perfectly easily argue that the combination ends up being somewhat progressive. In real terms, the largest amounts are going to be coming in from people with houses valued at a lot more than 2M.

If it causes a few people to split their £2M houses into 2 £1M flats, then good - that'll probably increase the number of people actually living in some of the more ghostlier areas in the capital.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Perhaps it's a good thing if such people move to the seaside, thus freeing up their houses to be used by hard working families who work in the city..

And die lonely because they have left all their friends behind and dont know anybody in Eastbourne or wherever.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(possibly related) tangent:

What I've loved about all the people getting worked up about the 'bedroom' tax and citing attachment to area, house, etc is this:

When a cleric dies in-post their widow(er) and children immediately lose their home; they will be given a period of grace of a maximum of 3 months but they have to get out - and in many cases this means that at a time when their life is already thrown into disarray they have to move area, find a (new) job, move schools, etc.

Where are the church protests about that?

tangent/ rant over

As for the, "good, better 2 x £1m flats than 1 £2m house" mentality - I almost lose the will to live...

Compare and contrast the couple in a house they scrimped and scraped to save from the wrecking ball and then laboured for many years to bring back to good repair - but because it happens to be Georgian and in the 'right' part of London its now worth £2m plus. Neither have ever had a well-paid job - that's why they bought the wreck; now they look after grandchildren. Yet they'll pay the mansion tax.

But the couple who have a portfolio of 100 + rental properties won't pay a penny.

It is POINTLESS trying to justify, let alone work out the mechanics of, a tax that is inherently unfair and as full of holes as a collander just because 'its for the NHS' - and no responsible politician or party would base any real plans on it for a moment.

The tax 'take' for the UK is pretty well known, give or take a few quid: if any party wants to make plans it must work within the constraints of what money it can reasonably and responsibly rely upon having. If any party can't make their sums add up their is something wrong with the sums - not with the amount of money - and they need to think again. Its unfortunate for Labour and the Eds that this means difficult choices needing to be made between spending on the NHS, Pensions or on the Welfare budget, but since those are the largest items on the national housekeeping bill, those are the ones that need to be looked at.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The tax 'take' for the UK is pretty well known, give or take a few quid: if any party wants to make plans it must work within the constraints of what money it can reasonably and responsibly rely upon having.

Unfortunately, your calculations and your conclusion are broken. HMRC reckons on tax evasion being around £22bn. Independent calculations put that at some £80bn. The NHS as a total costs around £110bn.

So there seems to be plenty of slack in the system to pay for the things that 99% of us want. I could also mention the staggering £1tn that the bank bailouts cost us, and we seemed to find that quickly enough when it was broke bankers with their hands out.

My suggestion would be to make sure that tax is actually collected: most people can't avoid tax, because it comes out at source, so increase the scrutiny and compliance on those who seem to be able to avoid it with impunity.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404

 - Posted      Profile for Ahleal V     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Perhaps it's a good thing if such people move to the seaside, thus freeing up their houses to be used by hard working families who work in the city..

And die lonely because they have left all their friends behind and dont know anybody in Eastbourne or wherever.
...and whilst this may seem cheeky and tangential, the fact that they raised their children at St Mark's by the Gasworks, Londontahn and faithfully served on the PCC for 40 years? Well, that legacy they were always planning to give to the long-suffering St Mark's with no endowment? Sorry, nope. They moved to Eastbourne, and didn't find their new church to be to their taste.

Such a scenario has been played out in my parents church again and again...

x

AV

Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
posted by Doc Tor
quote:
I could also mention the staggering £1tn that the bank bailouts cost us, and we seemed to find that quickly enough when it was broke bankers with their hands out.
The UK was able to use QE because we have and control our own central bank: and QE money didn't bail-out anyone - what it did was buy a number of packages of bonds which were otherwise unsaleable because of the near zero interest rate.

What bailed out the banks - was the money this freed up in large wholesale banks so they began to lend again to industry, and retail banks so people could continue having things like mortgages, etc.

The sort of bond-selling that got the retail banks into trouble in the first place is something that, IMO, should not be happening within the same institution as one which is responsible for holding retail savings and mortgage accounts.

The bail-out was in fact largely done by other bank customers - especially those with accounts with Halifax, Lloyds, TSB and C&G, with the Bank of England giving extended credit to RBS/NatWest to keep them afloat.

In fact Lloyds TSB should never have been allowed to beggar themselves by, in effect, paying top dollar for a bankrupt bank: it is questionable whether or not such a takeover would have been allowed (in fact they were almost forced to do it in the end) if the bank in question wasn't a Scots institution...

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Doc Tor
quote:
I could also mention the staggering £1tn that the bank bailouts cost us, and we seemed to find that quickly enough when it was broke bankers with their hands out.
The UK was able to use QE because we have and control our own central bank: and QE money didn't bail-out anyone - what it did was buy a number of packages of bonds which were otherwise unsaleable because of the near zero interest rate.

What bailed out the banks - was the money this freed up in large wholesale banks so they began to lend again to industry, and retail banks so people could continue having things like mortgages, etc.

"Let's pretend it wasn't a bank bail out, but it was really." [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Stamp duty used to be for the rich - not it's crept down to £130K - that's almost every house in the country.

It's really not, you know. A mile from where I live (in a modern, spacious, 2-bed apartment in a nice part of town, that I bought last year for less than £125k) you can buy perfectly good 2- or 3-bed terraced houses for £60-70k. The neighbourhood isn't quite as nice as where I live, and public transport isn't quite as good, but they're there.

When it comes to the mansion tax, if you want a property worth over £2million within 10 miles of the centre of Manchester, your £2million will typically get you a 5- or 6-bedroom house in an acre or more of land, in a Cheshire village on the edge of the conurbation where premier league footballers tend to live.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lucia

Looking for light
# 15201

 - Posted      Profile for Lucia     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well yes of course this is a problem in particular areas of the country, especially the south east. But people do actually need to live in those areas, either for work, or because they need to be near family or simply because this is home for them and relocating just to buy a cheaper home is not always an option people feel able to take.

Anyway, I just had a look on Rightmove for the county I used to live in before I left the UK. There are no houses currently for sale for less than £130000 listed in the country, apart from shared ownership schemes, park homes or boats to live on.

Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Lucia

Looking for light
# 15201

 - Posted      Profile for Lucia     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, missed the edit window..

I meant "listed in the county ..."

Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Well yes of course this is a problem in particular areas of the country, especially the south east. But people do actually need to live in those areas, either for work, or because they need to be near family or simply because this is home for them and relocating just to buy a cheaper home is not always an option people feel able to take.

.

Indeed, but if they can afford a £2 million house, they are by definition extremely rich and can afford the tax.

If we're talking about stamp duty, then there's a good argument for the threshold for that going up, I'll grant.

[ 24. November 2014, 13:23: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is getting tedious.

People who whine about the mansion tax pick out real (or potential?) examples of negative impacts of the tax to suggest it is desperately unfair or unworkable.

As if all other taxes don't have distorting effects at all.

What Britain really needs is a proper land-value tax (and I say that as a private landlord) and this is a good first step and from what I've seen the specific exemptions for cash-poor, asset rich individual cases aren't bad either.

The worst that can be said about the 'Mansion tax' is that is might have a negative effect on some overheated parts of the housing market - holding values down to avoid the tax... oh wait, that's a good thing too...

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lucia

Looking for light
# 15201

 - Posted      Profile for Lucia     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was commenting on Stamp duty, not mansion tax.
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My support for the mansion tax would increase if government would increase housebuilding in the South East, thereby decreasing the value of my property to the extent that I can be sure I'll never pay it.

What seems hard for London families with two jobs, and then some, is that despite their home being valued at a 7-figure sum, they have in practical terms a lower standard of living than their peers in the rest of the country. The house, probably Victorian, is in poor condition - rising damp, leaking roof, leaking window frames that can't be replaced with an affordable alternative because of planning regulations, no parking, no garden, no loft, no storage space, and certainly no spare room.

It's fine - it's adequate - it's ours - it's a roof and four walls. But the idea that it might be fair for their to be an extra tax burden on it because there is a shortage of property in the south east, when other much more luxurious homes don't attract that tax seems....unfair.

So - build more homes in the south east, so that property prices become more equal. Then set any property tax at a level where it catches people who demonstrably have a better standard of living because of their property "wealth".

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is your house worth anything like £2million, EM? If I had an asset like that I'd flog it, buy something similar in a nicer part of the country for about a tenth of the value, invest the money and live off the income.

I actually think we don't need more housebuilding in the SE. We need to consider ways to decentralise the economy so that people don't have to move there to find work.

[ 25. November 2014, 14:03: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is your house worth anything like £2million, EM? If I had an asset like that I'd flog it, buy something similar in a nicer part of the country for about a tenth of the value, invest the money and live off the income.

I actually think we don't need more housebuilding in the SE. We need to consider ways to decentralise the economy so that people don't have to move there to find work.

Nowhere near £2m, but might be edging towards 7 figures. I would love to live somewhere else - I'm from Lancashire, and when I was growing up, I always assumed I'd live near the West Pennine moors, be near family, commute to Manchester for work.

I have two different degenerative eye conditions and I lost my driving licence about 14 years ago. So the only way I can have any independence, get my children places and work is to live close to public transport in an area with really good public transport. Add to that the fact that my in-laws are in their 90s, and my husband isn't going to be moving away from them any time soon, and I tend to accept I'm stuck down here.

I don't want to live off released equity right now. I am able to work, and for me personally, it's important to do my bit to contribute to the economy through earning and paying tax and spending.

We've got to find a way to keep it practical for people to live in London. Not just what we might think of as essential workers, but I believe it's in society's interests for, for example, the city to draw its workforce from a much wider pool than the traditional elite.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sympathy for EM (though public transport in Manchester is not bad). Obviously London will continue to be not just the political but also the commercial and creative capital for the foreseeable future. But this ought to be balanced by government policy actively directing more job-creating industries to less favoured, and less expensive, areas of the country. It is nonsense to build more and more houses in the southeast when in all our northern cities there are streets and streets of boarded-up houses, and much brownfield land which could be be developed. Laisser-faire is a nonsense, and would end up with a gridlocked southeast and a windswept desert everywhere else.

Having said that, a 'mansion tax' is only a partial solution if that, to the problems of the south-east. Labour needs to be much more bold in confronting the massive inequality in wealth, not just between north and south, but between the super-rich and everyone else (which of course includes most people in London).

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:


I actually think we don't need more housebuilding in the SE. We need to consider ways to decentralise the economy so that people don't have to move there to find work.

Very much this - I'm currently on my second or third reading of Tristram Hunt's "Building Jerusalem," about the growth of the Victorian city, and not for the first time thnking that there might be something in this "city regions" stuff that both Labour and the Tories have been coming out with lately. We need to be so much less London centric in both how the country is organised, and how the country thinks (at least in terms of England). The first is achievable, the second less so - but the first is probably a step in the right direction.

I'm broadly a One Nation conservative, but there's a lot to be said for the Jo Chamberlain school of civic nationalism as seen in 19th century Birmingham..

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sympathy for EM (though public transport in Manchester is not bad). Obviously London will continue to be not just the political but also the commercial and creative capital for the foreseeable future. But this ought to be balanced by government policy actively directing more job-creating industries to less favoured, and less expensive, areas of the country. It is nonsense to build more and more houses in the southeast when in all our northern cities there are streets and streets of boarded-up houses, and much brownfield land which could be be developed. Laisser-faire is a nonsense, and would end up with a gridlocked southeast and a windswept desert everywhere else.


Exactly - by reducing the population flow into London and the SE from "the regions" (those of us here call it "Britain") by providing opportunities elsewhere the pressure on accommodation would be eased and the ridiculous price inflation stemmed. Building more and more houses in areas with high demand unfortunately may merely do a similar thing to adding lanes to busy motorways - encourage yet more use and pressure.

One of my great fears is that my children will have to move to the SE to pursue careers. I wouldn't be able to afford to follow them.

[ 25. November 2014, 15:15: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

One of my great fears is that my children will have to move to the SE to pursue careers. I wouldn't be able to afford to follow them.

That's true. One of our daughters is working in the Big Smoke already, while the other finds that most of her local friends have departed there in search of jobs.

[ 26. November 2014, 08:32: Message edited by: Angloid ]

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

One of my great fears is that my children will have to move to the SE to pursue careers. I wouldn't be able to afford to follow them.

That's true. One of our daughters is working in the Big Smoke already, while the other finds that most of her local friends have departed there in search of jobs.
Not to mention the fact that one of the knock-on effects of the Tory belief that people should just up sticks and move around the country every few years in search of work is that their elderly relatives end up with no-one to look after them and costing money to social services.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

One of my great fears is that my children will have to move to the SE to pursue careers. I wouldn't be able to afford to follow them.

That's true. One of our daughters is working in the Big Smoke already, while the other finds that most of her local friends have departed there in search of jobs.
Not to mention the fact that one of the knock-on effects of the Tory belief that people should just up sticks and move around the country every few years in search of work is that their elderly relatives end up with no-one to look after them and costing money to social services.
Ahem - "Thatcherite belief" - a Tory belief would be in settled communities with everyone finding their place (you may prefer "knowing" but putting that to one side).

Those of us on the left of the party are still hoping Thatcherism will blow over. Even forlorn hopes are hopes, after all.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Small tangent: interesting to see Jon Cruddas MP nominating Roger Scruton's How to be a conservative as his his book of the year in the Staggers a couple of weeks ago. I'm coming to think that the most important ideological divide is between Thatcherites/liberals (including quite a lot of the 'Guardian'-writing left) on the one hand and those of us- Blue or Red- who believe in community and settlement, on the other.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Small tangent: interesting to see Jon Cruddas MP nominating Roger Scruton's How to be a conservative as his his book of the year in the Staggers a couple of weeks ago. I'm coming to think that the most important ideological divide is between Thatcherites/liberals (including quite a lot of the 'Guardian'-writing left) on the one hand and those of us- Blue or Red- who believe in community and settlement, on the other.

[Overused]

Nail. Head.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At one time in America, taxes were levied on houses according to the number and size of their windows. I've heard worse ideas.

In any case, there should be a distinction between the value of a building itself and that of the underlying land. According to some estimates, the property I bought in 1986 has more than doubled in value. This must be almost entirely because the land has appreciated. The building was a small, somewhat declasse fixer-upper when I acquired it and still is. Moth and rust do corrupt... at some point in the future it will worthless and need to be torn down. It is the land that has appreciated. Buy land, counseled Mark Twain, because they're not making it anymore.

As for wealth and the unearned income on it, I was shocked to see how high a percentile some estimates put me in. These are life savings. Forty years ago I was practically insolvent. By dint of frugality, I have done no more than They Say everyone should do in preparation for retirement. I may soon need it to meet basic exenses. To the extent that it earns income, the principal is at risk. Please God, any outright "wealth tax" had better take into account at least the age of the owner.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We had window tax, too. You can still see houses with bricked up windows where the owners decided on some tax avoidance.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ahem - the US had our (British) window tax - came in in 1696 when they were still colonies.

Not all bricked-up windows are from avoiding old window tax: they also came about as houses were added to and windows needed to be put elsewhere.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Did wonder about it being the same tax (only without representation, of course) but didn't know the dates.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442

 - Posted      Profile for marzipan   Author's homepage   Email marzipan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps a tax based on house values would weigh heavier on certain areas of the country. So how about something that taxes under-occupied or unoccupied property? There's already a head count of adults living in a property in England and Wales for council tax and voting purposes, so that information could be cross referenced with a registry of property sizes.
Charge the owner of the property a tax on a sliding scale based on floor area compared to adult occupants.
A reasonable sized 2 or 3 bedroom house is about 100 square metres, so maybe allow 50 square metres per adult inhabitant (and a bit less per child). Maximum tax charged to properties that are entirely empty. No tax charged to properties that are counted as 'full'.
This would encourage property owners to keep houses etc in a habitable condition so that they can get tenants, and help to ease pressure on the rental markets as more people would be encouraged to get lodgers etc.

--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese

Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by marzipan:
Perhaps a tax based on house values would weigh heavier on certain areas of the country. So how about something that taxes under-occupied or unoccupied property?

The government has beaten you to it, with the 'bedroom tax' which reduces Housing Benefit for those occupying, as you say, a home larger than fits their needs.

It only applies to benefits recipients however.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think what marzipan has in mind is actually some form of Land Value Taxation, which is used in some countries around the world.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442

 - Posted      Profile for marzipan   Author's homepage   Email marzipan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know about the 'spare bedroom tax'. I was suggesting something similar for the people who actually own the property, rather than the ones who live in it (also, applied to owner occupiers and private rental rather than council housing).
Edit: the idea of it being based on floor area rather than value was to even out the difference in property prices across the country (also it would be less likely to need re assessing often)

[ 29. November 2014, 22:02: Message edited by: marzipan ]

--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese

Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools