mansion tax

[edh]

sidicks said:

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?

...don't try and wriggle out of it.

Let's be clear, it will not help the lowest 15% of earners. They make up a pretty big proportion of "low earners", unless you choose to redefine the term to mean "anyone not paying tax at 40%".

[DonkeyApple]

edh said:

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..

Absolutely not. It is an artificial market and the largest controller is the State.

If you think it correct that a party which controls the price can then levy a tax on that price is remotely ethical or logical then I can't help you.

If you think that the poorest should pay tax, I can't help you.

If you think that the middle income earners should finance an army of non workers, I can't help you.

If you think pensioners should be asset stripped, I can't help you.

If you think that enslaving Britons into benefit entrapment is fair then I cannot help you.

I actually think that your beliefs are sick.

[sidicks]

edh said:

...don't try and wriggle out of it.

I've no idea what your problem is. You seem oblivious to the fact that plenty of people have pointed out the fallacies in your posts:

Let's remind ourselves:

edh said:

..a tax cut in 2020 for the top 15% of taxpayers.

This is undeniably false.

I said:

sidicks said:

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

This is undeniably correct.

edh said:

Let's be clear, it will not help the lowest 15% of earners. They make up a pretty big proportion of "low earners", unless you choose to redefine the term to mean "anyone not paying tax at 40%".

I never said it would.

Any you'd have to be stupid to think an income tax reduction would benefit people who don't pay income tax (although those on the current boundary would now probably benefit by making overtime more lucrative).

Feel free to continue this pathetic discussion, I won't be.

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 1st October 21:26

[anonymous-user]

edh said:

...don't try and wriggle out of it.

Let's be clear, it will not help the lowest 15% of earners. They make up a pretty big proportion of "low earners", unless you choose to redefine the term to mean "anyone not paying tax at 40%".

But it will help more than 90% of full time workers

[DonkeyApple]

crankedup said:

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.

A wealth divide is essential for a healthy society. You have to have it to meet the human need to better and grow.

As you know, when the divide becomes too great then this breaks down and social mobility collapses and aspirations are unmanageable.

The wealth divide in the UK is purely defined now by property asset values and that is the problem. The farce is that it is not real wealth but synthetic as all it can do is facilitate increased debt.

Personally, I think the UK would have been a better place if property prices in 2007 had not been subjected to further State intervention and left to rebase naturally. However, we all know that due to the State being too over leveraged it couldn't manage the fall out of rebasing from such inflated values. But if the resi market had been left to deflate and if institutional funds had been blocked or made uncompetitive then we would have no cost offloading crisis today. Lending should never have been deregulated. That was the fundamental and heinous State crime of the century and every generation will pay for that.

As for the State being a machine, it is very much so. It feeds by taxing as much as possible and by entrapping as many as possible into its control through an ever expanding benefits system. People on benefits are under control. Brown removing the 10p rate and exchanging it with tax credits was one of the more overt examples of how the State needs people to be in the benefits system. And the Tories haven't exactly reduced the number.

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

...don't try and wriggle out of it.

I've no idea what your problem is. You seem oblivious to the fact that plenty of people have pointed out the fallacies in your posts:

Let's remind ourselves:

edh said:

..a tax cut in 2020 for the top 15% of taxpayers.

This is undeniably false.

I said:

sidicks said:

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

This is undeniably correct.

edh said:

Let's be clear, it will not help the lowest 15% of earners. They make up a pretty big proportion of "low earners", unless you choose to redefine the term to mean "anyone not paying tax at 40%".

I never said it would.

Any you'd have to be stupid to think an income tax reduction would benefit people who don't pay income tax (although those on the current boundary would now probably benefit by making overtime more lucrative).

Feel free to continue this pathetic discussion, I won't be.

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 1st October 21:26

Undeniably bks. All your arguments rest on semantic hair splitting and whatever you decide is a low or middle earner. You choose to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent my comments and that smokescreen focuses on the proposal for the personal allowance not the higher rate band change ( a tax cut for the 15% paying higher rate tax).

[edh]

Try this

www.blogs.ft.com/off-message/2014/10/01/tax-cuts-f...

Edited by edh on Thursday 2nd October 08:47

[anonymous-user]

wsurfa said:

edh said:

...don't try and wriggle out of it.

Let's be clear, it will not help the lowest 15% of earners. They make up a pretty big proportion of "low earners", unless you choose to redefine the term to mean "anyone not paying tax at 40%".

But it will help more than 90% of full time workers

Where is the 10% of full time workers who won't be helped? With the min wage, surely any full timer could benefit?

[anonymous-user]

[quote ( a tax cut for the 15% paying higher rate tax).



[/quote]

Who carry more than their fair share of the IT burden currently.

[anonymous-user]

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%)

Is it not obvious that the discussion is about tax payers not people below the tax threshold? You were wrong about high earners having a personal allowance, now you are desperately trying to make some non point about non tax payers. Move on.

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

wsurfa said:

edh said:

...don't try and wriggle out of it.

Let's be clear, it will not help the lowest 15% of earners. They make up a pretty big proportion of "low earners", unless you choose to redefine the term to mean "anyone not paying tax at 40%".

But it will help more than 90% of full time workers

Where is the 10% of full time workers who won't be helped? With the min wage, surely any full timer could benefit?

Based on ONS data - the bottom 10% of fulltime workers earn below 13800 (using less than 52 weeks - using a full year this rise to over 14k). However ONS uses 30hours+ to define fulltime, so using 8hours/day as a 'normal' week then this could be increased significantly.

Without the complete range it's difficult to estimate, however another data set for average fulltime hourly earnings gives the bottom 10% earning £15k or less (based on 52 weeks of 40 hours).

So even with a 75/80% week being defined as fulltime (25 hours for a teacher) the change benefits more than 90% of fulltime workers. Using a full week of 37 hours (a normal gov measure) and 2013 avg hourly rates this rise to a benefit for c 95%+ of full time workers.

[Alex]

edh said:

...don't try and wriggle out of it.

Let's be clear, it will not help the lowest 15% of earners. They make up a pretty big proportion of "low earners", unless you choose to redefine the term to mean "anyone not paying tax at 40%".

Who employs the low earners? Probably higher rate tax payers, who are likely to take more risks to succeed in business if they are allowed to keep more of their money, and thus create employment.

[crankedup]

DonkeyApple said:

crankedup said:

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.

A wealth divide is essential for a healthy society. You have to have it to meet the human need to better and grow.

As you know, when the divide becomes too great then this breaks down and social mobility collapses and aspirations are unmanageable.

The wealth divide in the UK is purely defined now by property asset values and that is the problem. The farce is that it is not real wealth but synthetic as all it can do is facilitate increased debt.

Personally, I think the UK would have been a better place if property prices in 2007 had not been subjected to further State intervention and left to rebase naturally. However, we all know that due to the State being too over leveraged it couldn't manage the fall out of rebasing from such inflated values. But if the resi market had been left to deflate and if institutional funds had been blocked or made uncompetitive then we would have no cost offloading crisis today. Lending should never have been deregulated. That was the fundamental and heinous State crime of the century and every generation will pay for that.

As for the State being a machine, it is very much so. It feeds by taxing as much as possible and by entrapping as many as possible into its control through an ever expanding benefits system. People on benefits are under control. Brown removing the 10p rate and exchanging it with tax credits was one of the more overt examples of how the State needs people to be in the benefits system. And the Tories haven't exactly reduced the number.

Looking at the Governance system other side of pond. Very opposite to the U.K. model and yet the American Society seem no better off. Simplistically cutting somewhere down the middle of both systems should, in theory, provide something to suit most. Personally I would hate to see the loss of our NHS and a half decent strictly controlled safety net for basic living would be fine.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Looking at the Governance system other side of pond. Very opposite to the U.K. model and yet the American Society seem no better off. Simplistically cutting somewhere down the middle of both systems should, in theory, provide something to suit most. Personally I would hate to see the loss of our NHS and a half decent strictly controlled safety net for basic living would be fine.

1. Who (political party or individual is proposing getting rid of the NHS?
2. Who is proposing removing a safety net for basic living?

[Mrr T]

sidicks said:

1. Who (political party or individual is proposing getting rid of the NHS?
2. Who is proposing removing a safety net for basic living?

I am certainly advocating getting rid of the NHS.

I would suggest moving to the sort of systems used by the rest of Europe. Cost is similar to the UK but health outcomes much better.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Looking at the Governance system other side of pond. Very opposite to the U.K. model and yet the American Society seem no better off. Simplistically cutting somewhere down the middle of both systems should, in theory, provide something to suit most. Personally I would hate to see the loss of our NHS and a half decent strictly controlled safety net for basic living would be fine.

1. Who (political party or individual is proposing getting rid of the NHS?
2. Who is proposing removing a safety net for basic living?

I was saying that I personally would not want to live with the systems of benefits or health care systems provided in the states, not suggesting that the systems here are proposed to be ditched.

[sidicks]

Mrr T said:

I am certainly advocating getting rid of the NHS.

I would suggest moving to the sort of systems used by the rest of Europe. Cost is similar to the UK but health outcomes much better.

I think you are very much in the minority.

[FredClogs]

Alex said:

edh said:

...don't try and wriggle out of it.

Let's be clear, it will not help the lowest 15% of earners. They make up a pretty big proportion of "low earners", unless you choose to redefine the term to mean "anyone not paying tax at 40%".

Who employs the low earners? Probably higher rate tax payers, who are likely to take more risks to succeed in business if they are allowed to keep more of their money, and thus create employment.

I know a couple of SME business owner, although I have heard them chunter and moan about paying the taxes they do (like every one else across the earning spectrum) I have never heard them suggest scaling back, reducing or making business decisions based on the tax they'd pay if that business decision proved profitable. Most people, I'd say everyone one I know, who owns and runs an SME does so for the obligation to their staff and the challenge of running a business.

[crankedup]

Mrr T said:

sidicks said:

1. Who (political party or individual is proposing getting rid of the NHS?
2. Who is proposing removing a safety net for basic living?

I am certainly advocating getting rid of the NHS.

I would suggest moving to the sort of systems used by the rest of Europe. Cost is similar to the UK but health outcomes much better.

How do those European health care systems operate? My understanding of the French system is that the State provides free health care for definitive treatments only, the remaining treatments are pay as you go.

[Rovinghawk]

FredClogs said:

Most people, I'd say everyone one I know, who owns and runs an SME does so for the obligation to their staff and the challenge of running a business.

Not for the money they can make?