mansion tax

[Lotusevoraboy]

RichB said:

Lotusevoraboy said:

No mortgage, no worries, it's not like they have owt else to pay out.

I must say you have a simplistic view of life, tell me, do you still live with your parents?

A similarly sweeping statement/assumption from yourself based on....? Do you?

[TankRizzo]

Lotusevoraboy said:

Those in council houses do pay council tax you know.


The 1% levy should include/replace council tax, so those in £100,000 houses, paying £1000 would see no increase, nor would those in £200,000 houses really. However, the 'wealthy' in £350,000 plus houses, would see the total they pay increase over and above their current rate, assuming a top rate band H current limit of c£3200 per annum with council tax.

I'm just guessing here, but I reckon you live in a house worth around 200k.

[audidoody]

1. Govt introduces £2 million "mansion" tax

2. Market flooded by forced sale of £2 million "mansions" (eg. three-bed flat in Knightsbridge) by asset-rich and cash poor pensioners

3. Glut of £2 million property depresses prices

4. £2 million mansion now worth £1,800,000

5. Pensioner gets to stay in "mansion"

6. No tax paid


Yep. Well thought out Ed.

[dbdb]

Lotusevoraboy said:

...Rich people do not like paying tax and think they should pay the same as the poor.

I don't think you realise how much many owners of large houses have borrowed and how much of their income is taken up servicing that debt, particularly if they are fairly young.

[dbdb]

audidoody said:

1. Govt introduces £2 million "mansion" tax

2. Market flooded by forced sale of £2 million "mansions" (eg. three-bed flat in Knightsbridge) by asset-rich and cash poor pensioners

3. Glut of £2 million property depresses prices

4. £2 million mansion now worth £1,800,000

5. Pensioner gets to stay in "mansion"

6. No tax paid


Yep. Well thought out Ed.

[Lotusevoraboy]

Nah, £320000 to £350000 would be the sort of house value where a 1% levy would see an increase over and above the top rate of council tax, assuming band H at £3200 to £3500 p.a. My 1% plan would actually see me paying bit more tax than I do...we've all got to do our bit. To just slam a £20000 tax on pads of over £2m is stupid, like stopping child benefit dead at a certain rate...but that's a different debate.

I don't see anyone else on here offering a viable alternative?

[TankRizzo]

Lotusevoraboy said:

Nah, £320000 to £350000 would be the sort of house value where a 1% levy would see an increase over and above the top rate of council tax, assuming band H at £3200 to £3500 p.a. My 1% plan would actually see me paying bit more tax than I do...we've all got to do our bit. To just slam a £20000 tax on pads of over £2m is stupid, like stopping child benefit dead at a certain rate...but that's a different debate.

I don't see anyone else on here offering a viable alternative?

To quote tonker some time ago:

This country does not have an income problem. It has an expenditure problem.

I am all for stopping spending money on pointless wars, huge amounts of foreign aid to nuclear-capable countries and other useless st before we start whacking tax on everything under the sun.

[Lotusevoraboy]

dbdb said:

Lotusevoraboy said:

...Rich people do not like paying tax and think they should pay the same as the poor.

I don't think you realise how much many owners of large houses have borrowed and how much of their income is taken up servicing that debt, particularly if they are fairly young.

But by virtue of the fact they have borrowed it, with mortgages granted based on income, then the ability to afford a tax rises with the size of mortgage/income/house value. They'll only lend you an amount that roughly equates to c60% of your monthly salary in mortgage payments, whether that leads to a £100000 or £400000 mortgage, 40% of your income would remain. I do know about large borrowing at a young age too...at 25 I borrowed £0.25million, which was a massive amount and the absolute maximum I could. I still paid £2000 a year council tax.

[RobDickinson]

Would they get a refund if in negative equity then?

[Lotusevoraboy]

No but the year after their bill/1% levy would be less if the value of the property had gone down.

[RobDickinson]

fk me I'm glad I live 16,000 kilometres away from this st.

[Pickled]

Lotusevoraboy said:

Nah, £320000 to £350000 would be the sort of house value where a 1% levy would see an increase over and above the top rate of council tax, assuming band H at £3200 to £3500 p.a. My 1% plan would actually see me paying bit more tax than I do...we've all got to do our bit. To just slam a £20000 tax on pads of over £2m is stupid, like stopping child benefit dead at a certain rate...but that's a different debate.

I don't see anyone else on here offering a viable alternative?

Why does there need to be an alternative? Council tax pays for your local council, and we all know how well they manage their budgets. This is just another tax on top of taxed income to be paid for by those that already pay the largest share of tax, my house is worth around £450-500k (mortgage free), doesn't mean I'm wealthy, just fortunate enough to have got on the property ladder young enough (18!) when property was bought as a place to live, not as a get rich scheme, so should I be penalised for for being sensible rather than a feckless waster?

[jonny70]

Lotusevoraboy said:

No but the year after their bill/1% levy would be less if the value of the property had gone down.

and how will this be administrated?
Recruit an army of council home valuers?

[hornet]

Lotusevoraboy said:

The more money the house is worth, the bigger the income must be to get the mortgage, so people should be able to afford it. No mortgage, no worries, it's not like they have owt else to pay out.

And for those who took out the mortgage 30+ years ago before house price inflation kicked in? My parents are in a bog standard semi-detached at about the £300k mark. Both are retired and are by no means "wealthy". They certainly don't have £3k a year to be throwing away, that's for sure, and to suggest otherwise is perverse, as indeed is the idea that an identical retired couple in an identical house elsewhere in the country would pay less purely due to geography. How is that possibly fair? As for "owt else to pay out", there's the small matter of planning for their care when they are elderly.

[sleep envy]

Lotusevoraboy said:

Rich people do not like paying tax and think they should pay the same as the poor.

Please define rich.

[anonymous-user]

sleep envy said:

Please define rich.

I'd like the definition explained too.

We've had this discussion so many times on PH. It seems to go along the following lines.

If you earn £10k then the bloke earning £20k is seen as rich.

If you earn £20k then the bloke earning £30k is seen as rich

And on and on ....

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 15th February 10:36

[Halmyre]

nyxster said:

"Let me tell you about one crucial choice we would make, which is different from this Government. We would tax houses worth over £2m. And we would use the money to cut taxes for working people."

Cut taxes for working people. - is he suggesting nobody who lives in a 2m plus house works?

I suggest a pistonheads tax of 1p a post to pay someone to punch miliboob in the face.

Can we also knee Camoron in the groin?

[JagLover]

dbdb said:

It seems a more than usually idiotic attempt at attention grabbing by Milliband at a by-election; perhaps an attempt to spike the Liberal democrats. It is a disappointing thing for him to have done and I hope he reconsiders/sidelines the idea before the next election. Housing in this country is already very highly taxed.

Is Housing already very highly taxed?

Your own home is exempt from CGT, if you arrange your affairs right even a part of the gain on a second home could be exempt from CGT as well.

The aim of taxation should be raise money to pay for essential services with as little economic damage as possible. Currently hard work is punished by penal rates of taxation while property gains resulting from a credit bubble and planning restrictions often escape tax entirely.

No wonder so much of investment in the british economy goes into housing and this is one of the reasons our economy is struggling.

A house is a place to live, a tripling of their value does not mean the economy is strong, it just means that the standard of living of the next generation will be worse than that of their parents.

[Jasandjules]

Why should anyone pay a further charge on top of the council tax for their home? Most people would not be able to afford it frankly, and in that I include plenty of people in £300,000 houses. I mean, 1% is 3k so another £250 a month? Many people with a £300,000k house will have a hefty mortgage to pay for it. Plenty of people inherit larger houses than they could otherwise afford, what are they supposed to do? Frankly this is another jealousy tax.

[turbobloke]

JagLover said:

dbdb said:

It seems a more than usually idiotic attempt at attention grabbing by Milliband at a by-election; perhaps an attempt to spike the Liberal democrats. It is a disappointing thing for him to have done and I hope he reconsiders/sidelines the idea before the next election. Housing in this country is already very highly taxed.

Is Housing already very highly taxed?

Your own home is exempt from CGT, if you arrange your affairs right even a part of the gain on a second home could be exempt from CGT as well.

The aim of taxation should be raise money to pay for essential services with as little economic damage as possible. Currently hard work is punished by penal rates of taxation while property gains resulting from a credit bubble and planning restrictions often escape tax entirely.

With SDLT for a >£2m home at 7% then if a wealthy individual has acquired it at that price, the State has had its bite of the cherry and a sizeable one at £140k+.

If the home has gained in value to over £2m, for example a London property owned for 40 years, the person(s) owning it and living there would (as you put it) be subjected to a penal rate of mansion tax and their pension plus other liquid assets may well not be sufficient to pay for the LibDim or Liarbore raid on their total assets.

It seems arbitrary that they could be forced to sell and downsize or move location just because the same type of politicians who screwed up managing the economy also realise that the sheeple in this country will back a daft idea as long as it hits somebody else and who better than the 'rich' even if they're not in the wider view.

It's a silly idea and those suggesting it are exactly who you would expect to see doing so, i.e. incompetent politicians with an eye for populism.