mansion tax

Author
Discussion

edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
sidicks said:
edh said:
Are you really saying that people on higher tax bands don't get their personal allowance tax free?
Yes, shouldn't you know the basics if you are going to try and debate this?
But it's not true - people on 40% tax band get a personal allowance. You want to play games, fine, but if you want to discuss tax and how it affects the top 2-3% of earners, then that's a different discussion entirely

sidicks said:
edh said:
Middle earners - the ones in the middle of the income distribution. If you really want to put numbers on it, how about those between 25 and 75% of all taxpayers be earnings? Not in the top 15%. Unless your definition of middle is substantially different
Middle earners tens to be thought of as those approaching the 40% tax bucket. At least when the public sector is talking about certain teachers, civil servants, NHS staff who are at that level, they don't consider themselves 'high earners'....
Unfortunately what you "think" doesn't mean it's true, and what people "consider" is a middle income depends on their own income as you will know. Would be better if you came up with some numbers - can't be too hard can it?

sidicks said:
edh said:
You tried to claim that a rise in personal allowances helps low earners - then you say you know it doesn't help the bottom 15% of earners. Make your mind up.
Tax cuts help those who pay tax. To expect another result is foolish,many that was the context of the discussion.
You said it helped low earners, not me. That was foolish , wasn't it?

sidicks said:
edh said:
not really - sounds like an unfunded tax cut to me, as it's unfunded.
I'm not sure you've seem the full spending plans for 2020 to make that comment...
I refer you to Osborne's quotation from 2008

Edited by edh on Wednesday 1st October 15:03

edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
edh said:
Justayellowbadge said:
edh said:
Are you really saying that people on higher tax bands don't get their personal allowance tax free?
Yes.
People are saying just that. It makes the marginal tax rate at 100-110k a little punitive.
ah ok - the highest earners..... (top 2 to 3 %). Not people on the 40% band, not 97% of earners
When you specifically ask about the higher tax bands you can reasonably expect answers regarding the higher earners rather than the majority. What else could you possibly expect?
ffs the majority don't even pay 40% tax! The vast majority of people paying 40% tax will have a personal allowance, in full.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
/\ quoting all gone Pete Tong.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
edh said:
The vast majority of people paying 40% tax will have a personal allowance, in full.
So those who don't have this allowance have a higher tax band. (I'll define a higher tax band as paying a larger %age of their earnings in tax, which seems pretty reasonable)

edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes I understand - we're all going round in circles on a question of semantics, High, Highest, Middle - obviously mean different things to different people. Maybe we get a lawyer to insert a table of definitions?

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
edh said:
ffs the majority don't even pay 40% tax! The vast majority of people paying 40% tax will have a personal allowance, in full.
You're right. Only about 15% of earners pay that rate. Though they do contribute almost 40% of revenue collected through IT.

Seems to me that if I were a lower rate taxpayer, the extra PA would be more significant to me than a higher rate payer.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
edh said:
Yes I understand - we're all going round in circles on a question of semantics, High, Highest, Middle - obviously mean different things to different people. Maybe we get a lawyer to insert a table of definitions?
Please let me simplify- tax cuts only help those who pay tax, not those who don't.

The greater the tax, the greater the benefit of a tax cut.

You might not feel that this is 'fair' to the person who doesn't actually pay tax, but I fail to see why his position should be improved when he's actually already a beneficiary of the system that others are paying for.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
edh said:
ffs the majority don't even pay 40% tax! The vast majority of people paying 40% tax will have a personal allowance, in full.
Yes those on 40% (+2 % NI) can have 0 personal allowance. It is removed £1 allowance to £2 earning to create a 62% marginal tax band from 100-120k.

If the allowance goes to 12k then the band would be 100-124k at 62%, for those allegedly on the 40(+2)% rate.

Is there any possibility you could have the faintest clue what you're talking about, before spouting more class warrior BS.

Thanks awfully.

crankedup

25,764 posts

242 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
sidicks said:
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...)
Yes I appreciate the choice is available, the question being asked is a simple one that is being investigated. Is good value for money being given, because the much talked of benchmarks are being hit is not given evidence that the fund is being as actively and well managed as it might be. Perhaps it may be found that bench marks are positively out of context with what could be achieved. Woodford reckons overcharging is almost the norm for the given performance turned in.

No all that is wanted is good value for money. If I was to say personally that my safe fund was charging the same management fees as my high risk fund and both funds hit the bench marks I would be happy. But is the bench mark set to low through lazy investment fund managers? That I believe is the question.

Alex

9,975 posts

283 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
edh said:
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/income-tax-rat...

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6045

oh and if a low earner has an increase in net income as a result of the tax cut, they are likely to face a withdrawal of some WTC or CTC.
Good.

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
crankedup said:
Yes I appreciate the choice is available, the question being asked is a simple one that is being investigated. Is good value for money being given, because the much talked of benchmarks are being hit is not given evidence that the fund is being as actively and well managed as it might be. Perhaps it may be found that bench marks are positively out of context with 'what could be achieved'.
Again you are showing a lack of understanding - if the asset class you are permitting the manager to invest in is FTSE 100 equities then the benchmark is FTSE 100 index!

crankedup said:
Woodford reckons overcharging is almost the norm for the given performance turned in.
I think those are your words not his.

As explained above if you want a passive strategy, pay passive fees. If you want active management, pay the higher fees. Active management is NOT a guarantee of higher returns. Managers are charging for the active management they are providing.



crankedup said:
No all that is wanted is good value for money. If I was to say personally that my safe fund was charging the same management fees as my high risk fund and both funds hit the bench marks I would be happy. But is the bench mark set to low through lazy investment fund managers? That I believe is the question.
If you don't like the benchmark the manager is managing the fund against, don't invest!

Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
KingNothing said:
People who don't earn more than the personal allowance, not catching a break from income tax cuts? I've fking heard it all now laugh
This^^

edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
wsurfa said:
edh said:
ffs the majority don't even pay 40% tax! The vast majority of people paying 40% tax will have a personal allowance, in full.
Yes those on 40% (+2 % NI) can have 0 personal allowance. It is removed £1 allowance to £2 earning to create a 62% marginal tax band from 100-120k.

If the allowance goes to 12k then the band would be 100-124k at 62%, for those allegedly on the 40(+2)% rate.

Is there any possibility you could have the faintest clue what you're talking about, before spouting more class warrior BS.

Thanks awfully.
Thanks for being so condescending..try reading a bit slower next time.

What does your comment have to do with mine? Withdrawal of PA is above 100k. ~2% of taxpayers are hit by this. ~ 15% of taxpayers are into 40% tax band.

So maybe 85% of 40% tax band payers get their PA in full.

All this focus on ~2% of taxpayers is pointless.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
edh said:
Thanks for being so condescending..try reading a bit slower next time.

What does your comment have to do with mine? Withdrawal of PA is above 100k. ~2% of taxpayers are hit by this. ~ 15% of taxpayers are into 40% tax band.

So maybe 85% of 40% tax band payers get their PA in full.

All this focus on ~2% of taxpayers is pointless.
Try remembering what you said next time - 'Not people on the 40% band' 'Are you really saying that people on higher tax bands don't get their personal allowance tax free?'

It's like talking with the rapid wing of the SNP, or to be honest almost every schoolboy socialist - inability/blindness to their own ignorance, which for some reason they trumpet as a virtue.


98elise

26,381 posts

160 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
edh said:
Tell me how BTL landlords "create wealth" and are "productive" I suspect Rovinghawk may have an opinion..
Since you ask, I created some wealth by taking a wreck of a house & turning it into a nice place to live.
Your political position seems to predominantly involve wanting to take some of that wealth & giving it to those who haven't done similar work.

Apart from that, it's also about providing a needed service. Those who defend 'non-productive' doctors & nurses will argue a similar position. You might equally question how bus/train drivers create wealth.


Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 1st October 14:29
Same here. In the past 4 years I've completely renovated 3 houses before renting.

My deposits + the debts I've taken on amounts to about £500k pushed into the economy. The assets I've bought are providing a service people need, and works as a small business for me.

Seems good all round.


Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
98elise said:
My deposits + the debts I've taken on amounts to about £500k pushed into the economy. The assets I've bought are providing a service people need, and works as a small business for me.

Seems good all round.
The results of your work should be confiscated & 'fairly' distributed amongst the more deserving, apparently.

This will not have the negative results seen when Zimbabwe adopted a similar system.

Justayellowbadge

37,057 posts

241 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
98elise said:
My deposits + the debts I've taken on amounts to about £500k pushed into the economy. The assets I've bought are providing a service people need, and works as a small business for me.

Seems good all round.
The results of your work should be confiscated & 'fairly' distributed amongst the more deserving, apparently.

This will not have the negative results seen when Zimbabwe adopted a similar system.
Exactly. Local tradesmen employed? Three families provided with somewhere to live?

They deserve to hang, do the rentier scum.

/housepricecrash

edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
98elise said:
Rovinghawk said:
edh said:
Tell me how BTL landlords "create wealth" and are "productive" I suspect Rovinghawk may have an opinion..
Since you ask, I created some wealth by taking a wreck of a house & turning it into a nice place to live.
Your political position seems to predominantly involve wanting to take some of that wealth & giving it to those who haven't done similar work.

Apart from that, it's also about providing a needed service. Those who defend 'non-productive' doctors & nurses will argue a similar position. You might equally question how bus/train drivers create wealth.


Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 1st October 14:29
Same here. In the past 4 years I've completely renovated 3 houses before renting.

My deposits + the debts I've taken on amounts to about £500k pushed into the economy. The assets I've bought are providing a service people need, and works as a small business for me.

Seems good all round.
I'm not saying you're an evil cadre who will be first against the wall come the revolution....

You're a middle man for the banks - you get paid for the risk you take, and the tenants pay the banks, who ultimately collect most of the "rent".
I can see why people have turned to BTL for investment, and acknowledge there is a massive housing problem.
A lot of landlords are stuck in the middle of this and have been saved by massive house price inflation vs low interest rates.

Seems to take 2 people to work full time to pay the "rent" these days...

Can't think that doctors and nurses aren't productive though.

edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
wsurfa said:
edh said:
Thanks for being so condescending..try reading a bit slower next time.

What does your comment have to do with mine? Withdrawal of PA is above 100k. ~2% of taxpayers are hit by this. ~ 15% of taxpayers are into 40% tax band.

So maybe 85% of 40% tax band payers get their PA in full.

All this focus on ~2% of taxpayers is pointless.
Try remembering what you said next time - 'Not people on the 40% band' 'Are you really saying that people on higher tax bands don't get their personal allowance tax free?'

It's like talking with the rapid wing of the SNP, or to be honest almost every schoolboy socialist - inability/blindness to their own ignorance, which for some reason they trumpet as a virtue.
try quoting the right post next time then.....as you can see, the discussion has moved on, clarifying that particular subject. If you're going to try and score schoolboy points, try a bit harder.

Interested in the "rapid" wing of the SNP though......please expand

edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
Justayellowbadge said:
They deserve to hang, do the rentier scum.

/housepricecrash
Ah now you're getting the hang of it smile