mansion tax

[Justayellowbadge]

edh said:

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.

You actually believe this tripe, don't you?

'Middle man for the banks'. Loon.

[edh]

Justayellowbadge said:

edh said:

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.

You actually believe this tripe, don't you?

'Middle man for the banks'. Loon.

BTL - you borrow a load of cash, buy houses whose value has shot up in the last 20 years, get paid rent by tenants, most of which goes to the lender, you take a % to maintain the house + profit.

or are you saying BTL landlords usually fund it themselves? Surely leverage is what makes big profits - that's the Fergus/Judith Wilson model isn't it?

[Rovinghawk]

edh said:

I..................... acknowledge there is a massive housing problem.

Would you therefore accept that we provide a service for which we are paid? Would you further accept that by improving the housing stock (refurbs, etc) we are creating wealth?

edh said:

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

Why do you say "rent" in that manner? As for working to pay it, I'm not to blame for house prices & make a reasonable rather than offensive level of profit. How little work should they do to be able to afford housing?

edh said:

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

They don't 'produce' or 'create wealth' but they act as a part of the whole economic system, as do landlords.

[DonkeyApple]

oyster 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.

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'?

No mansion tax if it were to come in would ever be at as high a level as £2m and everyone knows it. It would be adventurous to think it might even be as high as £1m.

And yes, cost of living has indeed meant that far more pensioners have annuity income shortfalls than anticipated.

[anonymous-user]

oyster said:

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'?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

[DonkeyApple]

edh said:

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”

Re 2. No. Your personal allowance is progressively removed once above £100k. So raising it to £12.5 does not benefit the rich, only the poor and middle earners.

Lowest earners on minimum wage doing a normal week's hours will no longer be subject to income tax essentially.

Raising the higher rate by nearly 20% will massively benefit the average professional earner who is the single most valuable commodity in the demographic.

The only downside is that it is election guff and won't be seen.

[anonymous-user]

edh said:

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.

Then stop focussing on them........

[edh]

Rovinghawk said:

edh said:

I..................... acknowledge there is a massive housing problem.

Would you therefore accept that we provide a service for which we are paid? Would you further accept that by improving the housing stock (refurbs, etc) we are creating wealth?

yes I'd accept all of that - for those landlords that improve housing stock

Rovinghawk said:

edh said:

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

Why do you say "rent" in that manner? As for working to pay it, I'm not to blame for house prices & make a reasonable rather than offensive level of profit. How little work should they do to be able to afford housing?

"rent" in a broader sense - what we need to earn to keep going. Remember the 60's when one parent's earnings seemed to be enough to run a family?

I don't think you're necessarily to blame - you are trying to find a way to make some money. House price inflation seems a good bet & certainly has been over the last 20 years. We need rental property for a variety of reasons. Crazy house prices have affected the rental market as well as the owner occupier market. Fix house prices (land values) and we fix rents [I don't mean rent controls]. Aside from the "class warfare" rhetoric, good landlords could be applauded.

Rovinghawk said:

edh said:

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

They don't 'produce' or 'create wealth' but they act as a part of the whole economic system, as do landlords.

Well you could say they take damaged units of labour and repair them so they can to undertake useful work... In a broader sense, they fix people so that they can either go back to work, or they need less care from those who could / should be working.

[crankedup]

Mansion tax - I was initially in favour but have now performed a stunning hand-brake 'U' turn. Punitive and 'unfair' + inherently challenging to implement and maintain.

[DonkeyApple]

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.

Er exactly. Lowest earners should not pay income tax and not should they be imprisoned by the State benefits machine. Benefits are bad. They are used by a State to control the masses. There was never a real need for income support as the shortfall could have been solved by removing taxation. The reason most of these benefits were brought in and the reason so many forced into them was to control the masses.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

Mansion tax - I was initially in favour but have now performed a stunning hand-brake 'U' turn. Punitive and 'unfair' + inherently challenging to implement and maintain.

ETA: also drawing fire from some fairly well-known Labour MPs: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/27/ma...

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 1st October 17:42

[DonkeyApple]

crankedup said:

Mansion tax - I was initially in favour but have now performed a stunning hand-brake 'U' turn. Punitive and 'unfair' + inherently challenging to implement and maintain.

The really interesting aspect is that the State fundamentally controls the value of the asset as we have seen with pumping up values by relaxing debt restrictions then through 'independent' rate cuts to keep values up, Help to Buy and restricting land to build. And then would have the ability to tax this wealth that they artificially create.

If a private business tried to do such a thing there would be an uproar from they very people who support the State doing it.

And it compounds the cost of living crisis by pushing more people down.

The only actual solution to the cost of living crisis is to reduce the single largest cost of living which is housing. And the only way to do that is to deflate values. It also has the advantage of reducing the wealth divide and the benefits bill. All things that create a better society of freer people. But the State is a machine that cannot tollerate freedom and keeping asset values inflated keeps the population enslaved.

[JagLover]

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.

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.

Well firstly that isn't necessarily 15% of voters as many households will have a higher rate tax payer and a basic rate tax payer.

Secondly the benefit freeze doesn't affect the disabled.

Finally the higher rate of tax was supposed to kick in at high income levels not when you are not that far past average earnings.

Moving it to £50k will put it where it should have been without years of fiscal drag.

[sidicks]

JagLover said:

Well firstly that isn't necessarily 15% of voters as many households will have a higher rate tax payer and a basic rate tax payer.

Secondly the benefit freeze doesn't affect the disabled.

Finally the higher rate of tax was supposed to kick in at high income levels not when you are not that far past average earnings.

Moving it to £50k will put it where it should have been without years of fiscal drag.

Yes, but what will it do for those who don't pay income tax....

[NomduJour]

edh said:

or are you saying BTL landlords usually fund it themselves? Surely leverage is what makes big profits - that's the Fergus/Judith Wilson model isn't it?

The money would make 0.25% in the bank. Ask again when the base rate is 10%.

[edh]

sidicks said:

JagLover said:

Well firstly that isn't necessarily 15% of voters as many households will have a higher rate tax payer and a basic rate tax payer.

Secondly the benefit freeze doesn't affect the disabled.

Finally the higher rate of tax was supposed to kick in at high income levels not when you are not that far past average earnings.

Moving it to £50k will put it where it should have been without years of fiscal drag.

Yes, but what will it do for those who don't pay income tax....

yes - I'm still trying to understand how you said raising the personal allowance will help low earners (for the avoidance of doubt - the bottom 15%)

[number 46]

Greg66 said:

ETA: also drawing fire from some fairly well-known Labour MPs: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/27/ma...

Edited by Greg66 on Wednesday 1st October 17:42

I suspect that these MP's concern is more to do with them owning houses that are worth more than 2 million!!! Of course isn't Tessa old man in chokey?? so she probably needs to make as much money as she can!!! Typical coffee cup socialist.

Note I abhor the mansion tax and inheritance tax,both are envy taxes pure and simple. Raising the 40% theshold is a start, although its is 5 years to late to help.

[edh]

DonkeyApple said:

crankedup said:

Mansion tax - I was initially in favour but have now performed a stunning hand-brake 'U' turn. Punitive and 'unfair' + inherently challenging to implement and maintain.

The really interesting aspect is that the State fundamentally controls the value of the asset as we have seen with pumping up values by relaxing debt restrictions then through 'independent' rate cuts to keep values up, Help to Buy and restricting land to build. And then would have the ability to tax this wealth that they artificially create.

If a private business tried to do such a thing there would be an uproar from they very people who support the State doing it.

And it compounds the cost of living crisis by pushing more people down.

The only actual solution to the cost of living crisis is to reduce the single largest cost of living which is housing. And the only way to do that is to deflate values. It also has the advantage of reducing the wealth divide and the benefits bill. All things that create a better society of freer people. But the State is a machine that cannot tollerate freedom and keeping asset values inflated keeps the population enslaved.

Don't you think that private business has a major effect on house prices? Housebuilders try to maximise their returns by extracting as much profit out of every single unit, which means restricting supply. No point increasing your production when the raw material (land) is finite. Banks will (probably) make more money lending you £500k than £100k. Developers are very happy to sit on vacant land, which costs them nothing to hold. All perfectly logical for them if they are seeking to maximise profits. Not so good for housebuyers, great for older house owners, until they decide they will have to use their asset gain to fund their children's house purchases..

[crankedup]

DonkeyApple said:

crankedup said:

Mansion tax - I was initially in favour but have now performed a stunning hand-brake 'U' turn. Punitive and 'unfair' + inherently challenging to implement and maintain.

The really interesting aspect is that the State fundamentally controls the value of the asset as we have seen with pumping up values by relaxing debt restrictions then through 'independent' rate cuts to keep values up, Help to Buy and restricting land to build. And then would have the ability to tax this wealth that they artificially create.

If a private business tried to do such a thing there would be an uproar from they very people who support the State doing it.

And it compounds the cost of living crisis by pushing more people down.

The only actual solution to the cost of living crisis is to reduce the single largest cost of living which is housing. And the only way to do that is to deflate values. It also has the advantage of reducing the wealth divide and the benefits bill. All things that create a better society of freer people. But the State is a machine that cannot tollerate freedom and keeping asset values inflated keeps the population enslaved.

Always there will be a wealth divide which is fine by me, its when the divide widens to the unsustainable levels that is my beef.

Yes I agree with most of that, except the bit about 'the State being a machine ect ect. TBH I haven't grasped the concept at all.

[sidicks]

edh said:

yes - I'm still trying to understand how you said raising the personal allowance will help low earners (for the avoidance of doubt - the bottom 15%)

I guess someone on minimum ware is a high earner as far as you are concerned?