mansion tax

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

Indeed, I take my hat off to you, fair play.

As an aside I recall management fees in various unit trust funds I held being 2% but at the time didn't have much choice but to pay. In fairness the funds did quite well so felt the fee was worth paying. Now that is a totally different scenario to pensions funds in as much as I was only in for medium term investment and could pull at any time.

It's no different at all. You know the service you want, you read the small print, you research the costs and you make your choice.

If the govt start to interfere it will bugger things up far worse than they are at present. If they insist on caps to charges, do you think people investing in pensions will be better off overall?

Take your own example. If charges for unit trusts were capped at 0.2%,do you think the people who did well for you would have been available to you?

Haven't the give already dabbled with restrictions on how IFAs and others charge?

You do come up with ill thought out idealist mumbo sometimes... And then pass it off as just wanting debate. You're an absolute godsend to the Millibands, Cleggs and Cables of this world. React to high level statements without any thought about the consequences

Its not the Government interfering as you put it, you have either not read the relevant thread posts or you are ill equipped to respond. The oldest and poorest trotted out feeble line, in as much saying nobody else can do the job they do. Weak, very very weak, the pensions funds generally play a safe game with the money, as has been previously mentioned as long as bench marks are hit that is good enough.

Before you start your daft personal comments you need to check out what your going on about, re subject matter. Idealistic mumbo jumbo,you will have to quote the stuff that you disagree with. And why have a pop at me anyhow, I didn't order the investigation! but somebody clearly decided it needed to be carried out.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Yes most investors would be content with benchmark performance but that benchmark must be measured against performances of other investment activity.

The benchmarks are explicitly stated and relate to the appropriate index for the asset class that the customer has chosen to invest in...

crankedup said:

Again its a matter of trust between the client and company involved. My sense is that this trust has possibly been breached over a period of years thanks to the continued bad news stories from other financial investment sectors?
I disagree with your assertion that 'if you told a client the fee that is not overcharging'. My reasoning is that if you take a example from the past :
Company 'A' supplies ten tons of concrete for 500 pounds.
Company 'B' ditto
Company 'C' "
The competitions authorities investigated and found collusion between the companies in order to maximise tier profits. In a nutshell overcharging in a closed industry.

I'm not suggesting the pensions industry is doing the same but clearly things are amiss. That will be revealed in due course. But its the same pattern emerging throughout the entire financial sector, wrongdoing and malpractice.

'clearly'..?

crankedup said:

Thank you for posting your own knowledge on the subject that I raised, as I mentioned that is what forum debates are for, not 'putting down' other posters.

As per other threads, when people raise sensible questions and seek to improve their understanding, then I'm happy to help and try and be constructive. Frequently however, when in my opinion it starts with vague claims and accusations by people that don't have a clue, they get a more aggressive response...

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 27th September 13:37

You are being deliberately obtuse. Show me vague claims that I have made, I am merely posting fact, the pensions funds management companies are currently under investigation alleged overcharging. Are you saying they are not? I have used terms such as : possibly, alleged, it seems. Never have I made a categoric statement in this thread, you seem to imply that I have.
The benchmark is of course important for customers, but you fail to acknowledge what it is that I posted regarding those people paying in money from wage packets. How these people may respond when faced with financial information on pension fund management and the charges, this is one of the principle reasons of investigation of the industry, more people are being forced to invest through recent Government policy making.
Frankly it seems that you are unable to take a rounded POV, hardly surprising as you seem to be part of the industry, it must be difficult when you seem to think the industry has nothing to answer for. I hope your correct in that assertion, we will have to wait and see.
You are basing your facts upon the individual private investor, not the group investor, and as you well know an important distinction.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

the pensions funds generally play a safe game with the money, as has been previously mentioned as long as bench marks are hit that is good enough.

1) The funds are invested in the asset classes the customer chooses. They can choose to be as safe or as risky as they like

2) It was only last year that these same funds were being criticised for too much trading....

3) Do people want benchmark returns (if so, buy passive funds) or do they want active management (with the associated risk of under-performance)...

(It seems that, as always, they want low fees, low downside but all the upside...)

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

You are basing your facts upon the individual private investor, not the group investor, and as you well know an important distinction.

In what way???

[DonkeyApple]

edh said:

DonkeyApple said:

DonkeyApple said:

edh said:

DonkeyApple said:

edh said:

DonkeyApple said:

Yup. The £2m headline grabbing figure is purely to grab the votes of the very people who are the actual target of the tax.

Once in place it will be used to punish anyone who isn't on benefits.

Ah so pensioners will be OK then

I should have said 'reliant' on benefits. Pensioners are totally screwed as they are the largest demographic in these mansions.

Largest demographic? really?

a. many will be comfortably off on large occupational pensions - my heart bleeds...
b. provision to roll up the debt will be there for the "poor widow in a mansion"

And many won't. Ever tried to move home at 80?

House prices are only high because of deliberate State deregulation of lending. Why punish someone who bought a modest family home 30 years ago before we became a debt and spend society?

By far the largest number of people in £1m+ homes will be pensioners and as we all well know very many have had their pensions decimated. Not everyone worked for the State and got given final salary schemes.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/article4219312.ece

paywall...

but why would they have to move? There is a huge amount of capital in the house that would pay the rolled up taxes on death (or sale)

Final salary schemes were still common in private sector companies 20-30 years ago, not just the preserve of "featherbedded" state employees

So, the govt artificially inflate property prices by de restricting lending, create a boom which raises the UK' net wealth artificially so the govt can then borrow more and then they decide to actually tax this artificial wealth they have created.

If someone thinks that the govt taxing an asset they have artificially inflated for their own means is progress, morally correct or logical then all I can say is the education system in the country is not particularly good.

[edh]

Those pinko lefty types at the FT have come out in favour of Land Value Tax..

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94fa6f84-43d0-11e4-8abd-...

Mansion tax is a poorly designed LVT, maybe a better one will emerge..

Note this isn't, or shouldn't be an extra tax, it should replace other taxes - take your pick to include stamp duty, IHT, Higher rate income tax etc..

[anonymous-user]

edh said:

Note this isn't, or shouldn't be an extra tax, it should replace other taxes

[edh]

fblm said:

edh said:

Note this isn't, or shouldn't be an extra tax, it should replace other taxes

Maybe you need to try and understood the principles behind LVT. Shift tax from work and consumption to land.

..of course I didn't say it would need to be be revenue neutral... & the Duke of Westminster wouldn't like it much.

[anonymous-user]

edh said:

fblm said:

edh said:

Note this isn't, or shouldn't be an extra tax, it should replace other taxes

Maybe you need to try and understood the principles behind LVT. Shift tax from work and consumption to land.

..of course I didn't say it would need to be be revenue neutral... & the Duke of Westminster wouldn't like it much.

Understand it just fine. I was laughing at the notion that it would ever be introduced instead of another tax. That's not how real life works.

[edh]

Thatcher introduced the poll tax, replacing (or sort of replacing) the rates. So it can be done.

She may not have been living in the "real world" by then of course..

[DonkeyApple]

Anyone remember who pays the landlord's costs? Anyone? Anyone?

[RYH64E]

edh said:

Thatcher introduced the poll tax, replacing (or sort of replacing) the rates. So it can be done.

She may not have been living in the "real world" by then of course..

Thatcher was a Conservative, the proposed mansion tax is a Labour/Lib Dem proposal, you can bet it will be an extra tax.

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

Greg66 said:

I'd love to see Cameron counter this with a pledge to increase the 40% income tax threshold significantly to reverse years of fiscal drag, but I really doubt he has the money available to do so. It would put a very, very large swathe of clear blue water between the parties fiscally, and more importantly idealogically.

Trouble with that is that if you move the barrier up to £60k then everyone between 40-60 who thought they were middle class, high tax paying winners will suddenly think they are low band income tax losers and have to vote Labour.

Well, it's a start - announcement today that he'd increase it to £50k (from £41,900).

Surely that's got to appeal to a hefty chunk of voters...

[sidicks]

Greg66 said:

Well, it's a start - announcement today that he'd increase it to £50k (from £41,900).

Surely that's got to appeal to a hefty chunk of voters...

And a substantial increases to the personal allowance (up to £12,500) too.

[edh]

Greg66 said:

DonkeyApple said:

Greg66 said:

I'd love to see Cameron counter this with a pledge to increase the 40% income tax threshold significantly to reverse years of fiscal drag, but I really doubt he has the money available to do so. It would put a very, very large swathe of clear blue water between the parties fiscally, and more importantly idealogically.

Trouble with that is that if you move the barrier up to £60k then everyone between 40-60 who thought they were middle class, high tax paying winners will suddenly think they are low band income tax losers and have to vote Labour.

Well, it's a start - announcement today that he'd increase it to £50k (from £41,900).

Surely that's got to appeal to a hefty chunk of voters...

..... a tax cut in 2020 for the top 15% of taxpayers. Usually parties announce pre-election sweeteners that will arrive either just before or just after an election.

and how many of the voters who will benefit are Tory voters anyway? Will a tax bribe stop them voting UKIP?

I doubt that these policies - tax cuts for the better off & benefit freezes (real term cuts) for the unemployed, disabled & working poor, will do much to dispel the image of the Tories as the party of the rich.

btw do they think they will have better luck with the deficit in a further 5 years so they can pay for tax cuts? Wonder what the OBR will make of it.

[oyster]

DonkeyApple said:

edh said:

DonkeyApple said:

edh said:

DonkeyApple said:

Yup. The £2m headline grabbing figure is purely to grab the votes of the very people who are the actual target of the tax.

Once in place it will be used to punish anyone who isn't on benefits.

Ah so pensioners will be OK then

I should have said 'reliant' on benefits. Pensioners are totally screwed as they are the largest demographic in these mansions.

Largest demographic? really?

a. many will be comfortably off on large occupational pensions - my heart bleeds...
b. provision to roll up the debt will be there for the "poor widow in a mansion"

And many won't. Ever tried to move home at 80?

House prices are only high because of deliberate State deregulation of lending. Why punish someone who bought a modest family home 30 years ago before we became a debt and spend society?

By far the largest number of people in £1m+ homes will be pensioners and as we all well know very many have had their pensions decimated. Not everyone worked for the State and got given final salary schemes.

A post of delusion.

1. Pensioners haven't had pensions decimated. Those yet to retire might have done, but not the 80 year olds you refer to.

2. What homes are now worth more than £2m that were 'modest' when they were bought? Unless you consider houses worth 4 times the local average are 'modest'?

[sidicks]

edh said:

..... a tax cut in 2020 for the top 15% of taxpayers. Usually parties announce pre-election sweeteners that will arrive either just before or just after an election.

Er, no.

A tax cut for everyone focussed on low and middle earners, with limited impact for the top earners.

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

..... a tax cut in 2020 for the top 15% of taxpayers. Usually parties announce pre-election sweeteners that will arrive either just before or just after an election.

Er, no.

A tax cut for everyone focussed on low and middle earners, with limited impact for the top earners.

sorry but no

1. tax cut for high earners by raising the 40% band - does nothing for low and middle earners. Remember that only 15% of taxpayers pay this rate.

2. higher earners benefit more from a raising of personal allowances (no marginal tax rate associated with reduction of benefits for them) - that's why this govt has squeezed down the 40% band in the last few years as they raised the personal allowance.

3. The lowest earners - those earning below the personal allowance don't benefit at all. Possibly up to 1 in 6 of all workers.

All academic as it's promised for 2020 and there's no hope they can pay for it, unless they decide to borrow more to pay for a tax cut
- as Osborne said in 2008 “Well if he doesn’t explain how it is going to be paid for then it isn’t a tax cut, it is a complete tax con”

[Justayellowbadge]

edh said:

sorry but no

1. tax cut for high earners by raising the 40% band - does nothing for low and middle earners. Remember that only 15% of taxpayers pay this rate.

2. higher earners benefit more from a raising of personal allowances (no marginal tax rate associated with loss of benefits) - that's why this govt has squeezed down the 40% band in the last few years as they raised the personal allowance.

3. The lowest earners - those earning below the personal allowance don't benefit at all. Possibly up to 1 in 6 of all workers.

You have read that old chestnut about the blokes in a bar?

[Rovinghawk]

edh said:

tax cuts for the better off

May I rephrase that?

"tax cuts for those that pay the most tax"