mansion tax

[Alex]

Another excellent article on wealth taxes by Allister Heath:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9880714...

[kiethton]

Alex said:

Another excellent article on wealth taxes by Allister Heath:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9880714...

The man speaks sense in 99% of his articles, enjoy reading them on the way into work each morning in the cityAM, even better is the flat tax arguement....

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

DonkeyApple said:

audidoody said:

Countdown said:

Assume we have a rich person and a poor person.

If you are a criminal and ALL OTHER THINGS being EQUAL, who are you going to rob?

There is a block of apartments near me built five years ago. To obtain permission from the Council, the developer had to ensure that part of the development was Housing Association flats). The private bit of the development is in pristine condition with owners installing good security measures burglar alarms, reinforced doors etc). The housing association building around the back has been trashed with graffiti, rubbish everywhere, a couple of abandoned vehicles outsde and several doors have been kicked in.

That's the trouble with liberal ideology. It makes no provision for human nature. Even when you do all you can to make people equal, some will end up more equal than others. Always.

Historically LA's have taken the cash equivalent off the developer and then pissed it up the wall on diversity projects.

Is that the Section 106 agreements you refer to? L.A. with developers planning permission for large developments of housing stock. Typically ensuring developers provide infrastructure at 'their' cost alongside new homes that bear inflated prices to pay for those infrastructures. My heart bleeds for the poor old developer.

Currently working alongside one such project and another completed not long ago. What inflated prices?

Is that comment also perhaps because you place developers in with the group of individuals who 'are able to afford to pay'?

Next step, penury tax.

I make the comment regarding inflated price of a new home for good reasons. 106 agreements cost the developer money, where do you think that money comes from?

Some from economies, some from profit, some from price if it's possible but as there is a limiting market price for a particular type of development in a specific area, and we are now in a tough market for sellers, the idea of inflated prices is wide of the mark.

I ask where do you think the money comes from regarding the 106 agreements with developers. You suggest Economies : so that's knocking back build quality.

Except on social housing. Those that are wealthy 'are able to afford to pay' for anything they dare to buy with their uncollectivist individual responsibiliy, hard work, skills and calculated risk taking.

crankedup said:

Profit : squeezed from the sale price.

Then by definition it hasn't come from profit, you can't have it both ways [but try all the time ]

crankedup said:

So at least I can get you now to agree it is money from the developers wallet.

What is 'it'?

crankedup said:

Now if you want to try and convince me that developers do not have an inflated price built into the sale price/unit to cover these costs and still get out on a fat profit be my guest.

I am your guest as far as my previous post goes.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

DonkeyApple said:

audidoody said:

Countdown said:

Assume we have a rich person and a poor person.

If you are a criminal and ALL OTHER THINGS being EQUAL, who are you going to rob?

There is a block of apartments near me built five years ago. To obtain permission from the Council, the developer had to ensure that part of the development was Housing Association flats). The private bit of the development is in pristine condition with owners installing good security measures burglar alarms, reinforced doors etc). The housing association building around the back has been trashed with graffiti, rubbish everywhere, a couple of abandoned vehicles outsde and several doors have been kicked in.

That's the trouble with liberal ideology. It makes no provision for human nature. Even when you do all you can to make people equal, some will end up more equal than others. Always.

Historically LA's have taken the cash equivalent off the developer and then pissed it up the wall on diversity projects.

Is that the Section 106 agreements you refer to? L.A. with developers planning permission for large developments of housing stock. Typically ensuring developers provide infrastructure at 'their' cost alongside new homes that bear inflated prices to pay for those infrastructures. My heart bleeds for the poor old developer.

Currently working alongside one such project and another completed not long ago. What inflated prices?

Is that comment also perhaps because you place developers in with the group of individuals who 'are able to afford to pay'?

Next step, penury tax.

I make the comment regarding inflated price of a new home for good reasons. 106 agreements cost the developer money, where do you think that money comes from?

Some from economies, some from profit, some from price if it's possible but as there is a limiting market price for a particular type of development in a specific area, and we are now in a tough market for sellers, the idea of inflated prices is wide of the mark.

I ask where do you think the money comes from regarding the 106 agreements with developers. You suggest Economies : so that's knocking back build quality.

Except on social housing. Those that are wealthy 'are able to afford to pay' for anything they dare to buy with their uncollectivist individual responsibiliy, hard work, skills and calculated risk taking.

crankedup said:

Profit : squeezed from the sale price.

Then by definition it hasn't come from profit, you can't have it both ways [but try all the time ]

crankedup said:

So at least I can get you now to agree it is money from the developers wallet.

What is 'it'?

crankedup said:

Now if you want to try and convince me that developers do not have an inflated price built into the sale price/unit to cover these costs and still get out on a fat profit be my guest.

I am your guest as far as my previous post goes.

Pedantic and ridiculous. You can do better, can't you? Perhaps not! move on.

[crankedup]

Alex said:

Another excellent article on wealth taxes by Allister Heath:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9880714...

Normally I have respect for this particular journo, however, this article is simply jumping onto a bandwagon spouting the obvious. Who could genuinely believe that a 'wealth tax' will ever see the light of day. Only dedicated moaners can get any mileage from this think tank policy paper.

[sleep envy]

crankedup said:

sleep envy said:

crankedup said:

Is that the Section 106 agreements you refer to? L.A. with developers planning permission for large developments of housing stock. Typically ensuring developers provide infrastructure at 'their' cost alongside new homes that bear inflated prices to pay for those infrastructures. My heart bleeds for the poor old developer.

It's not 'their' cost.

LA's will ask for a sum of money which is pooled and then spent on infrastructure (for infrastructure read 40% spent on infrstructure and 60% pissed up the wall).

When you correct me by saying its not the developers cost, which I then go on to say that the developers cost is then re-couped within the inflated cost of a new home, can you explain to me exactly where the 106 agreement money comes from? Also can you provide some evidence of how the 106 agreement agreement cash is spent please. Take one large development of 300-500 new homes in England as your example.

Yes, you're 100% correct that it's the developer that sets the price of a product rather than the market.

As it happens I've just come out of a S106 meeting, over half a million is being put towards the crossrail scheme - is that a good enough example for you?

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

DonkeyApple said:

audidoody said:

Countdown said:

Assume we have a rich person and a poor person.

If you are a criminal and ALL OTHER THINGS being EQUAL, who are you going to rob?

There is a block of apartments near me built five years ago. To obtain permission from the Council, the developer had to ensure that part of the development was Housing Association flats). The private bit of the development is in pristine condition with owners installing good security measures burglar alarms, reinforced doors etc). The housing association building around the back has been trashed with graffiti, rubbish everywhere, a couple of abandoned vehicles outsde and several doors have been kicked in.

That's the trouble with liberal ideology. It makes no provision for human nature. Even when you do all you can to make people equal, some will end up more equal than others. Always.

Historically LA's have taken the cash equivalent off the developer and then pissed it up the wall on diversity projects.

Is that the Section 106 agreements you refer to? L.A. with developers planning permission for large developments of housing stock. Typically ensuring developers provide infrastructure at 'their' cost alongside new homes that bear inflated prices to pay for those infrastructures. My heart bleeds for the poor old developer.

Currently working alongside one such project and another completed not long ago. What inflated prices?

Is that comment also perhaps because you place developers in with the group of individuals who 'are able to afford to pay'?

Next step, penury tax.

I make the comment regarding inflated price of a new home for good reasons. 106 agreements cost the developer money, where do you think that money comes from?

Some from economies, some from profit, some from price if it's possible but as there is a limiting market price for a particular type of development in a specific area, and we are now in a tough market for sellers, the idea of inflated prices is wide of the mark.

I ask where do you think the money comes from regarding the 106 agreements with developers. You suggest Economies : so that's knocking back build quality.

Except on social housing. Those that are wealthy 'are able to afford to pay' for anything they dare to buy with their uncollectivist individual responsibiliy, hard work, skills and calculated risk taking.

crankedup said:

Profit : squeezed from the sale price.

Then by definition it hasn't come from profit, you can't have it both ways [but try all the time ]

crankedup said:

So at least I can get you now to agree it is money from the developers wallet.

What is 'it'?

crankedup said:

Now if you want to try and convince me that developers do not have an inflated price built into the sale price/unit to cover these costs and still get out on a fat profit be my guest.

I am your guest as far as my previous post goes.

Pedantic and ridiculous. You can do better, can't you? Perhaps not! move on.

Peronal. Insulting. Inaccurate. Waste of space. Boring.

And replying in kind albeit more aptly...

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

fido said:

crankedup said:

So the 320K property back in 1991 may now command a market value of 1m or 2m . That is why all homes need to be reassessed for values IMO, rather than a blanket increase as being mooted now in the Labour/Lib-Dem think tanks.

They are reassessed whenever the property is sold on. It would cost a lot to revalue every house every year. Then the current value (e.g. 2m) is interpolated back to 1991. So i'm not sure what you're arguing for - more bands? The 1991 thing is a non-issue - it's just a fixed reference point.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 20th February 10:58

No they are not reassessed when sold, that is the case for market value obviously, but not by the Valuations office for Council tax purposes. Those homes that have been extended / upgraded will be revalued when the Government decides the time for that action is appropriate. Also every home will then be revalued. Yes the 1991 value is a fixed reference point, as I pointed out a number of posts back. The widening of tax bands is required that will then embrace and include homes which have increased in value significantly more than a National or regional average %.

Not true.

Local authorities monitor house sales in their areas. When a house is sold, they check if there have been any planning applications since it was last sold. If there has, then they visit and reassess as necessary. Well at least that is what happens in Norfolk.

I was subject to exactly this process in 2010 when I moved to my present house. It was built from old barns in the mid 90s, assessed and rated as band C. Later it was extended significantly which resulted on it being put in band F once we had moved in and it was reassessed.

The guy we bought from has done the same thing 3 times now. He still lives close by. His present house was built and rated before he sold our house to us. Since then it has doubled in size but won't be reassessed until/if he sells.

When the local authority contacted us shortly after moving in I couldn't really believe that this is how it works, nor the fact that they try to assess what a recently built house might have been worth back in 1991 but that's how it is.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

DonkeyApple said:

audidoody said:

Countdown said:

Assume we have a rich person and a poor person.

If you are a criminal and ALL OTHER THINGS being EQUAL, who are you going to rob?

There is a block of apartments near me built five years ago. To obtain permission from the Council, the developer had to ensure that part of the development was Housing Association flats). The private bit of the development is in pristine condition with owners installing good security measures burglar alarms, reinforced doors etc). The housing association building around the back has been trashed with graffiti, rubbish everywhere, a couple of abandoned vehicles outsde and several doors have been kicked in.

That's the trouble with liberal ideology. It makes no provision for human nature. Even when you do all you can to make people equal, some will end up more equal than others. Always.

Historically LA's have taken the cash equivalent off the developer and then pissed it up the wall on diversity projects.

Is that the Section 106 agreements you refer to? L.A. with developers planning permission for large developments of housing stock. Typically ensuring developers provide infrastructure at 'their' cost alongside new homes that bear inflated prices to pay for those infrastructures. My heart bleeds for the poor old developer.

Currently working alongside one such project and another completed not long ago. What inflated prices?

Is that comment also perhaps because you place developers in with the group of individuals who 'are able to afford to pay'?

Next step, penury tax.

I make the comment regarding inflated price of a new home for good reasons. 106 agreements cost the developer money, where do you think that money comes from?

Some from economies, some from profit, some from price if it's possible but as there is a limiting market price for a particular type of development in a specific area, and we are now in a tough market for sellers, the idea of inflated prices is wide of the mark.

I ask where do you think the money comes from regarding the 106 agreements with developers. You suggest Economies : so that's knocking back build quality.

Except on social housing. Those that are wealthy 'are able to afford to pay' for anything they dare to buy with their uncollectivist individual responsibiliy, hard work, skills and calculated risk taking.

crankedup said:

Profit : squeezed from the sale price.

Then by definition it hasn't come from profit, you can't have it both ways [but try all the time ]

crankedup said:

So at least I can get you now to agree it is money from the developers wallet.

What is 'it'?

crankedup said:

Now if you want to try and convince me that developers do not have an inflated price built into the sale price/unit to cover these costs and still get out on a fat profit be my guest.

I am your guest as far as my previous post goes.

Pedantic and ridiculous. You can do better, can't you? Perhaps not! move on.

Peronal. Insulting. Inaccurate. Waste of space. Boring.

And replying in kind albeit more aptly...

For all that and your use of the 'oh so laggard' icons, my post is totally accurate. Where is the insult? Personal, well yes I was responding directly to you, so it would be personal wouldn't it! Boring. matter of opinion, waste of space, you mean broadband space? Touched a nerve perhaps.

[crankedup]

sleep envy said:

crankedup said:

sleep envy said:

crankedup said:

Is that the Section 106 agreements you refer to? L.A. with developers planning permission for large developments of housing stock. Typically ensuring developers provide infrastructure at 'their' cost alongside new homes that bear inflated prices to pay for those infrastructures. My heart bleeds for the poor old developer.

It's not 'their' cost.

LA's will ask for a sum of money which is pooled and then spent on infrastructure (for infrastructure read 40% spent on infrstructure and 60% pissed up the wall).

When you correct me by saying its not the developers cost, which I then go on to say that the developers cost is then re-couped within the inflated cost of a new home, can you explain to me exactly where the 106 agreement money comes from? Also can you provide some evidence of how the 106 agreement agreement cash is spent please. Take one large development of 300-500 new homes in England as your example.

Yes, you're 100% correct that it's the developer that sets the price of a product rather than the market.

As it happens I've just come out of a S106 meeting, over half a million is being put towards the crossrail scheme - is that a good enough example for you?

Are you sure thats seems very little % from the sum total build cost. Your talking phase one of the scheme perhaps? And its not an example I was looking for actually. Look back and see I was suggesting domestic housing schemes as opposed to Government infrastructure schemes.

ps use your rolley eyes on Turbobloke, his the one with the problem of where 106 money comes from, not me.

Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 20th February 16:40

[crankedup]

REALIST123 said:

crankedup said:

fido said:

crankedup said:

So the 320K property back in 1991 may now command a market value of 1m or 2m . That is why all homes need to be reassessed for values IMO, rather than a blanket increase as being mooted now in the Labour/Lib-Dem think tanks.

They are reassessed whenever the property is sold on. It would cost a lot to revalue every house every year. Then the current value (e.g. 2m) is interpolated back to 1991. So i'm not sure what you're arguing for - more bands? The 1991 thing is a non-issue - it's just a fixed reference point.

Edited by fido on Wednesday 20th February 10:58

No they are not reassessed when sold, that is the case for market value obviously, but not by the Valuations office for Council tax purposes. Those homes that have been extended / upgraded will be revalued when the Government decides the time for that action is appropriate. Also every home will then be revalued. Yes the 1991 value is a fixed reference point, as I pointed out a number of posts back. The widening of tax bands is required that will then embrace and include homes which have increased in value significantly more than a National or regional average %.

Not true.

Local authorities monitor house sales in their areas. When a house is sold, they check if there have been any planning applications since it was last sold. If there has, then they visit and reassess as necessary. Well at least that is what happens in Norfolk.

I was subject to exactly this process in 2010 when I moved to my present house. It was built from old barns in the mid 90s, assessed and rated as band C. Later it was extended significantly which resulted on it being put in band F once we had moved in and it was reassessed.

The guy we bought from has done the same thing 3 times now. He still lives close by. His present house was built and rated before he sold our house to us. Since then it has doubled in size but won't be reassessed until/if he sells.

When the local authority contacted us shortly after moving in I couldn't really believe that this is how it works, nor the fact that they try to assess what a recently built house might have been worth back in 1991 but that's how it is.

Yes I apologise, you are quite correct. I somehow managed to confuse myself! Should have known better as I have recently, last year, applied for a re-banding on my own home, it failed. So again I aplogise and appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

REALIST123 said:

crankedup said:

fido said:

crankedup said:

So the 320K property back in 1991 may now command a market value of 1m or 2m . That is why all homes need to be reassessed for values IMO, rather than a blanket increase as being mooted now in the Labour/Lib-Dem think tanks.

They are reassessed whenever the property is sold on. It would cost a lot to revalue every house every year. Then the current value (e.g. 2m) is interpolated back to 1991. So i'm not sure what you're arguing for - more bands? The 1991 thing is a non-issue - it's just a fixed reference point.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 20th February 10:58

No they are not reassessed when sold, that is the case for market value obviously, but not by the Valuations office for Council tax purposes. Those homes that have been extended / upgraded will be revalued when the Government decides the time for that action is appropriate. Also every home will then be revalued. Yes the 1991 value is a fixed reference point, as I pointed out a number of posts back. The widening of tax bands is required that will then embrace and include homes which have increased in value significantly more than a National or regional average %.

Not true.

Local authorities monitor house sales in their areas. When a house is sold, they check if there have been any planning applications since it was last sold. If there has, then they visit and reassess as necessary. Well at least that is what happens in Norfolk.

I was subject to exactly this process in 2010 when I moved to my present house. It was built from old barns in the mid 90s, assessed and rated as band C. Later it was extended significantly which resulted on it being put in band F once we had moved in and it was reassessed.

The guy we bought from has done the same thing 3 times now. He still lives close by. His present house was built and rated before he sold our house to us. Since then it has doubled in size but won't be reassessed until/if he sells.

When the local authority contacted us shortly after moving in I couldn't really believe that this is how it works, nor the fact that they try to assess what a recently built house might have been worth back in 1991 but that's how it is.

Yes I apologise, you are quite correct. I somehow managed to confuse myself! Should have known better as I have recently, last year, applied for a re-banding on my own home, it failed. So again I aplogise and appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

No problem. TBH I could only be sure that it was so in Norfolk, never heard of it before. Gives the lie to the folk round here being a bit slow though, they are well up on this trick and a few others when it comes to 'tax avoidance'!

[sleep envy]

crankedup said:

Are you sure thats seems very little % from the sum total build cost. Your talking phase one of the scheme perhaps? And its not an example I was looking for actually. Look back and see I was suggesting domestic housing schemes as opposed to Government infrastructure schemes.

Yes, I'm fairly certain of my figures and they're not calculated on build costs.

It might npt be the example you were looking for but it's the one I have to hand. BTW, the money isn't ring fenced

[NDA]

crankedup said:

Yes I apologise, you are quite correct. I somehow managed to confuse myself! Should have known better as I have recently, last year, applied for a re-banding on my own home, it failed. So again I aplogise and appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

The last two houses I bought had their council tax charges increased on completion of the sale... One, because I had 'improved the garden'. This, apparently, made my bin more expensive to collect.

I suppose some would argue that a landscaped garden makes me more likely to require Police protection.

As an aside, I was chatting to an elderly near neighbour this afternoon who was widowed last year and lives on a pension. She was extremely anxious about the Family Home Tax and the fact she'd be forced out of her home if it comes into force. I mentioned that there's a thoughtful proposal being tabled that the government can collect the accrued debt from her estate on death. It was of little comfort.

[anonymous-user]

NDA said:

crankedup said:

Yes I apologise, you are quite correct. I somehow managed to confuse myself! Should have known better as I have recently, last year, applied for a re-banding on my own home, it failed. So again I aplogise and appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

The last two houses I bought had their council tax charges increased on completion of the sale... One, because I had 'improved the garden'. This, apparently, made my bin more expensive to collect.

I'm surprised they got you for an improved garden, they can normally only get on the case if there has been a planning application. Also its what's done before the sale that triggers the revaluations, and bin collections have nothing to do with CT, it's based on calculated value for the property in 1991.

Are you sure the previous owner had not done something more significant?

[NDA]

My council tax pays for rubbish collection. That's what my council tells me.

I wouldn't be surprised if they got this wrong though. They're barely functioning cretins. Highly paid ones.

They must be looking forward to the extra income from Family Home Tax.... Even bigger pensions for them.

I wonder if I should simply hand over all my assets to the state? It would save a lot of paperwork.... Live on benefits in a council house - far easier. Let the few entrepreneurs who are left shoulder the burden.

[RYH64E]

NDA said:

My council tax pays for rubbish collection. That's what my council tells me.

I wouldn't be surprised if they got this wrong though. They're barely functioning cretins. Highly paid ones.

They must be looking forward to the extra income from Family Home Tax.... Even bigger pensions for them.

I wonder if I should simply hand over all my assets to the state? It would save a lot of paperwork.... Live on benefits in a council house - far easier. Let the few entrepreneurs who are left shoulder the burden.

Try paying business rates, for £1500 per month I not only don't get my rubbish collected I can't even take it to the tip. I get nothing at all for paying business rates, but that's still not as annoying as having to pay employers NI, which is nothing more than a tax on jobs.

[NDA]

RYH64E said:

Try paying business rates, for £1500 per month I not only don't get my rubbish collected I can't even take it to the tip. I get nothing at all for paying business rates, but that's still not as annoying as having to pay employers NI, which is nothing more than a tax on jobs.

Yep. I did that.... Had my own business for 11 years which I sold.

We were kicked and shoved on a daily basis by various state bodies with their hands out for cash.

[turbobloke]

NDA said:

RYH64E said:

Try paying business rates, for £1500 per month I not only don't get my rubbish collected I can't even take it to the tip. I get nothing at all for paying business rates, but that's still not as annoying as having to pay employers NI, which is nothing more than a tax on jobs.

Yep. I did that.... Had my own business for 11 years which I sold.

We were kicked and shoved on a daily basis by various state bodies with their hands out for cash.

Precisely the kind of wealth transfer, private to public sector, that needs to be reversed dramatically,

If you'd been a hard-working, hard-pressed union dinosaur (yes, I know...) you might just have been offered beer and sandwiches at Number 10 in days gone by, or sherry and canapés when Teflone Tone was in residence.

[Ozzie Osmond]

RYH64E said:

Try paying business rates, for £1500 per month I not only don't get my rubbish collected I can't even take it to the tip. I get nothing at all for paying business rates, but that's still not as annoying as having to pay employers NI, which is nothing more than a tax on jobs.

You have my complete sympathy. The tax burden is insane. The idiots in Whitehall and our town halls think they can just go on raiding the same bottomless piggy-bank for ever.