Originally posted by chris stiles:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
'type of job' - the whole point is that the job is not 'real' in any sense of the word, it's just a mechanism used for tax arbitrage.
quote: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?
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.
quote:To which I can only add: damn right.
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.
quote: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?
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?
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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:How is it hard to tax capital gains or bonuses?
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.
quote:https://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/20040828/CSF983.gif
Originally posted by seekingsister:
How is it hard to tax capital gains or bonuses?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.)
quote:Doesn't the tax come into effect when the property changes hands? Like inheriting it?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote: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.
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.
Interesting also that thousands of people have had to move house because of the bedroom tax - I wonder if Klass will campaign for them?
quote: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.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
https://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/20040828/CSF983.gif
quote:That was specifically to your question as to how difficult it could possibly be to tax capital gains and bonuses.
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.
quote:So penalise middle income people who save for their future by investing?
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote: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.
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?
quote: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...
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:I'd like to be able to say that I don't want to be out of pocket.
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?
quote: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'.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'd like to be able to say that I don't want to be out of pocket.
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?
quote:But I'm guessing that isn't going to be the case, right?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'd like to be able to say that I don't want to be out of pocket.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:Except for all the very substantial tax cuts introduced for very rich people, and the lower rates already imposed on unearned income, I suppose.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Because taxes tend to move in one direction - higher and broader.
quote:No, Doc Tor, it's that some of us understand economics.
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.
quote:Thank you, Milton Friedman.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:No, Doc Tor, it's that some of us understand economics.
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.
quote:I'm sorry, I thought you said you understood 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.
quote:Flat taxes are entirely regressive, and do not benefit anyone but the very rich.
Can you address my previous suggestion of a flat wealth tax?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:But I'm guessing that isn't going to be the case, right?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'd like to be able to say that I don't want to be out of pocket.
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?
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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?
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:That won't work, as has already been explained. People can manufacture shell jobs as easily as shell companies.
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.
quote: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?
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: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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:That won't work, as has already been explained. People can manufacture shell jobs as easily as shell companies.
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.
quote:But they don't use the NHS more (or at all), which is what the mansion tax is supposed to be funding.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
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.
quote:.. but they would if they were impoverished grannies.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But they don't use the NHS more (or at all), which is what the mansion tax is supposed to be funding.
quote:I think you are completely missing the point. The problem is in your proviso; if such a thing was enacted anyone who was living off returns from investment alone could just seek to have part of that paid as 'income' in order to avoid tax on the property they live in. It's simply what many contractors used to do - but in reverse.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My suggestion was to exclude the property you live in, if you earn an income in Britain.
quote:Earned income as in someone who pays taxes through PAYE. Not capital gains or investment income.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think you are completely missing the point. The problem is in your proviso; if such a thing was enacted anyone who was living off returns from investment alone could just seek to have part of that paid as 'income' in order to avoid tax on the property they live in. It's simply what many contractors used to do - but in reverse.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
My suggestion was to exclude the property you live in, if you earn an income in Britain.
quote:Abolishing several taxes to create a new one would involve even more costly internal reorganisation for HMRC than just creating a new tax! I ask again: why does Ed(other than blatant electioneering) see the need to reinvent the wheel rather than use the existing system more effectively?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote: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?
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.
quote:So just create a shell company, register yourself as a part-time employee, pay yourself a nominal wage of £100 per month for consultancy. Use levels of indirection as appropriate.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Earned income as in someone who pays taxes through PAYE. Not capital gains or investment income.
quote:I oppose the mansion tax not because I think the rich shouldn't pay taxes, but because it's a blunt and ineffective instrument, and it will not stop at £2m properties.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can contribute, if you like, to an appeal fund for multi-millionaire Myleene Klass, so that she can pay her mansion tax (heavily sarcastic of course).
quote:"So I can avoid paying tax on my £2million property if I'm paying PAYE on a £12k pa job someone's just invented for me? Sweet."
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Earned income as in someone who pays taxes through PAYE. Not capital gains or investment income.
quote:But the "mansion tax" is wrong - it's taxing the value of the (building + land), not the land. To get to an LVT, you have to start with the right assumptions.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
An LVT is really what we want. A Mansion tax is simply the first stage in getting it.
quote:It will work, it just means that guy is exempt. If the person is actually doing a job and earning that money, then fine. The reality of course is that the type of job a very rich person would take would pay far more than £12k pa and then yield even more income tax revenue.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:"So I can avoid paying tax on my £2million property if I'm paying PAYE on a £12k pa job someone's just invented for me? Sweet."
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Earned income as in someone who pays taxes through PAYE. Not capital gains or investment income.
And that's why your idea won't work.
quote:Surely, one reason that taxes like this are being proposed, is that the rich will always find ways to dodge taxes, either through loop-holes, or clever accountancy, or just hiding the cash off-shore, or whatever. Properties are more difficult to hide, although just give it time, they will find a way.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I oppose the mansion tax not because I think the rich shouldn't pay taxes, but because it's a blunt and ineffective instrument, and it will not stop at £2m properties.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can contribute, if you like, to an appeal fund for multi-millionaire Myleene Klass, so that she can pay her mansion tax (heavily sarcastic of course).
Enforce the taxes we already have and if necessary tax assets for people who don't earn wages as their primary source of income, because physical assets can't be taken offshore. No one has responded to what happens to the guy who owns three £1m properties in London - he isn't going to get hit by the mansion tax but he certainly has more than £2m in assets.
quote:Because the existing system relies on chasing money that is inherently difficult to pin down, especially when the same people who consult for HMRC on tax legislation are the same people who advise very rich people on how to find the loopholes in tax legislation. Bluntly put, the existing system can easily find all the "hard working families" but it sucks at grappling with complex shell companies deliberately designed to obfuscate.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I ask again: why does Ed(other than blatant electioneering) see the need to reinvent the wheel rather than use the existing system more effectively?
quote:Your naivety is sweet, but oh so very easily exploitable.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If the person is actually doing a job and earning that money, then fine. The reality of course is that the type of job a very rich person would take would pay far more than £12k pa and then yield even more income tax revenue.
quote:Please do not condescend. I disagree with you and have proposed an alternative, not out of naivete but out of own education and understanding, thank you very much.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your naivety is sweet, but oh so very easily exploitable.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It will work, it just means that guy is exempt. If the person is actually doing a job and earning that money, then fine. The reality of course is that the type of job a very rich person would take would pay far more than £12k pa and then yield even more income tax revenue.
quote:And for a triple post, that doesn't make it "wrong".
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But the "mansion tax" is wrong - it's taxing the value of the (building + land), not the land.
quote:You do realize that the mansion tax doesn't exist yet, right?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
'type of job' - the whole point is that the job is not 'real' in any sense of the word, it's just a mechanism used for tax arbitrage.
quote:No, you misunderstand the way in which the tax system could be used. The 'job' doesn't have to be real in any sense of the word.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Please do not condescend. I disagree with you and have proposed an alternative, not out of naivete but out of own education and understanding, thank you very much.
quote:I'm not misunderstanding anything.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
No, you misunderstand the way in which the tax system could be used. The 'job' doesn't have to be real in any sense of the word.
quote:The slave who buried his wealth was thrown out of the city - therefore the slave was Jesus himself who kept torah and was crucified outside the city.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What did Jesus' hard man do to he who buried His wealth?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:The slave who buried his wealth was thrown out of the city - therefore the slave was Jesus himself who kept torah and was crucified outside the city.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What did Jesus' hard man do to he who buried His wealth?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Because all I own is tied up in my house - which i paid for out of earned income, not inherited income, which had already been taxed.
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?
quote:But I don't see how the mansion tax will be any different - avoidance will still abound.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Because the existing system relies on chasing money that is inherently difficult to pin down, especially when the same people who consult for HMRC on tax legislation are the same people who advise very rich people on how to find the loopholes in tax legislation. Bluntly put, the existing system can easily find all the "hard working families" but it sucks at grappling with complex shell companies deliberately designed to obfuscate.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I ask again: why does Ed(other than blatant electioneering) see the need to reinvent the wheel rather than use the existing system more effectively?
And furthermore, that's exactly how the system's been designed: to find the low and medium wage workers, and look the other way for the rich and unearned wealth-getters.
So, given that's what the system does, you either make a system that penalises labour even better at penalising labour, or you do something different. I choose the something different.
quote:How do you propose avoiding paying tax on a piece of property I can physically point to? The only quibble might be who to send the bill to, but that's what an updated Land Registry will sort out.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But I don't see how the mansion tax will be any different - avoidance will still abound.
quote:But I didn't think your house was worth £2million, Leo. Of course everyone deserves somewhere to live and that basic provision shouldn't be taxed. But nobody needs a mansion. Even in (most parts of) London £2 million will buy a fairly decent family home. And the big problem for places like Kensington and Chelsea isn't that well-off people might be taxed, but the scandalous price inflation which means that poor and ordinary people can't afford to live there. Yes, perhaps some interim provision could raise the tax threshold in places like that, but government action is needed urgently to curb prices and provide genuinely affordable housing for those who need to live there.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Because all I own is tied up in my house - which i paid for out of earned income, not inherited income, which had already been taxed.
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?
Why pay tax twice - and pay again a third time when I die?
If I thought tax was redistribution to the poor, I'd be Ok with it. But it isn't - it goes to private contractors who run what used to be public services.
quote:Given the rise in property prices in London, perhaps we should call this the 'Central London Family Home Tax'?
Originally posted by Angloid:
Even in (most parts of) London £2 million will buy a fairly decent family home.
quote:1. How does making an expensive place to live more expensive - by adding a tax - provide any relief to people who can't find affordable housing?
Originally posted by Angloid:
But nobody needs a mansion. Even in (most parts of) London £2 million will buy a fairly decent family home. And the big problem for places like Kensington and Chelsea isn't that well-off people might be taxed, but the scandalous price inflation which means that poor and ordinary people can't afford to live there. Yes, perhaps some interim provision could raise the tax threshold in places like that, but government action is needed urgently to curb prices and provide genuinely affordable housing for those who need to live there.
quote:It doesn't. That's why I said that an urgent problem is to tackle criminal price inflation. A mansion tax is probably a crude instrument but at least it is aimed at those who are able to pay. The bedroom tax is not only crude, but cruel and immoral.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
How does making an expensive place to live more expensive - by adding a tax - provide any relief to people who can't find affordable housing?
quote:We can already physically point at property; it doesn't stop avoidance.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:How do you propose avoiding paying tax on a piece of property I can physically point to? The only quibble might be who to send the bill to, but that's what an updated Land Registry will sort out.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But I don't see how the mansion tax will be any different - avoidance will still abound.
quote:They're both terrible policies.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:It doesn't. That's why I said that an urgent problem is to tackle criminal price inflation. A mansion tax is probably a crude instrument but at least it is aimed at those who are able to pay. The bedroom tax is not only crude, but cruel and immoral.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
How does making an expensive place to live more expensive - by adding a tax - provide any relief to people who can't find affordable housing?
quote:There are a number of answers for this; firstly that a so-called mansion tax is a start, not an end goal. In the longer term, wealth in general will be probably have to be taxed in some way/
Originally posted by seekingsister:
3. Again no one has addressed how the mansion tax has any impact on someone who owns multiple very expensive properties across the country as long as they all fall below the £2m threshold. (Hint: it doesn't have one).
quote:'Politics of envy' was invented by very rich people so that poor people would hate destitute people.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The whole idea of a mansion tax is pandering to the politics of envy
quote:That's the politics of envy, right there, and it has nothing to do with expecting very rich people to pay their taxes.
A banker, a Daily Mail reader and a benefit claimant are sat at a table. On a plate in the middle are 12 biscuits. The banker takes 11 biscuits for himself, then turns to the Daily Mail reader and says – “watch out for that benefit claimant, he’s after your biscuit."
quote:Nowhere near - it's the principle - and if I'd bought a house in London, the price would creep up - and if I'd bought it 50 years ago rather than 35, I could be in that bracket yet unable to afford to heat it etc.
Originally posted by Angloid:
But I didn't think your house was worth £2million, Leo. Of course everyone deserves somewhere to live and that basic provision shouldn't be taxed.
quote:So you'd rather freeze to death than realise your very significant assets? I'm really not sure what to make of that.
Originally posted by leo:
it's the principle - and if I'd bought a house in London, the price would creep up - and if I'd bought it 50 years ago rather than 35, I could be in that bracket yet unable to afford to heat it etc.
quote:Well, given that Rateable Values were actually a thing once, it's not much of a leap of imagination to believe they could be a thing again in the future.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The other issue is just how are these mansions going to be valued? We all know just how out-of-date the notional Rateable Values used for calculating Council Tax are
quote:OK, so now we're getting somewhere.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:There are a number of answers for this; firstly that a so-called mansion tax is a start, not an end goal. In the longer term, wealth in general will be probably have to be taxed in some way/
Originally posted by seekingsister:
3. Again no one has addressed how the mansion tax has any impact on someone who owns multiple very expensive properties across the country as long as they all fall below the £2m threshold. (Hint: it doesn't have one).
Secondly any tax will have a threshold below which you are tax exempt (yes we could set the limit for a single house lower - but then you were complaining about taxes being expanded earlier in the thread).
The tax itself would kick in fairly gradually - and is a fairly small fraction of the rent for a property of that size (which is why the argument about possible children who may work as teachers and nurses made very little sense).
And yes, we probably need to shift the burden of taxes towards non-primary residences.
quote:This is the crux of it and a very bitter pill for many to swallow.
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
The fact is that (particularly) after the financial crisis, the expectations of the general population as to shat should be provided, maintained, cared for and supported by the state is unrealistic compared to the wealth that can be easily generated through reasonable taxation.
quote:This argument also completely ignores the emotional involvement one might have with a house. The house could be the one where our hypothetical granny first lived with her husband and brought up her children and which brings her a lot of treasured memories. The effect of the Central London Family Home Tax is to say ‘Tough. Pay up or get out’.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
In the case of the hypothetical granny who bought her house for 2’6” back in the day, she can buy a perfectly nice smaller house for a cool million quid (she most likely lives alone) and then put the rest in the bank for a *very* comfortable retirement. Her wealth is tied up in assets, but my hypothetical granny looks pretty wealthy to me.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This argument also completely ignores the emotional involvement one might have with a house. The house could be the one where our hypothetical granny first lived with her husband and brought up her children and which brings her a lot of treasured memories. The effect of the Central London Family Home Tax is to say ‘Tough. Pay up or get out’.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
In the case of the hypothetical granny who bought her house for 2’6” back in the day, she can buy a perfectly nice smaller house for a cool million quid (she most likely lives alone) and then put the rest in the bank for a *very* comfortable retirement. Her wealth is tied up in assets, but my hypothetical granny looks pretty wealthy to me.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because the latter's being funded out of Anglican't's taxes so he owns her ass, innit?
quote:Well that’s your spin on things, not mine.
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.
quote: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."
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Well that’s your spin on things, not mine.
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.
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?
quote:They won't stop at that.
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.)
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Well that’s your spin on things, not mine.
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.
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?
quote:Well, they elected Ed Miliband as leader; QED
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:They won't stop at that.
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.)
Stamp duty used to be for the rich - not it's crept down to £130K - that's almost every house in the country.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Well, they elected Ed Miliband as leader; QED
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?
quote:£125K in fact.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:They won't stop at that.
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.)
Stamp duty used to be for the rich - not it's crept down to £130K - that's almost every house in the country.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
OK, so now we're getting somewhere.
quote: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.
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.
quote:And die lonely because they have left all their friends behind and dont know anybody in Eastbourne or wherever.
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..
quote: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.
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.
quote:...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.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:And die lonely because they have left all their friends behind and dont know anybody in Eastbourne or wherever.
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..
quote: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.
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.
quote:"Let's pretend it wasn't a bank bail out, but it was really."
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Doc Torquote: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.
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.
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.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote:Indeed, but if they can afford a £2 million house, they are by definition extremely rich and can afford the tax.
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.
.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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).
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote: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.
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.
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]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote: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.
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?
quote:I wasn't being entirely serious, just pointing out that the government already does it for those who are least able to afford it!
Originally posted by marzipan:
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).
