mansion tax

[NDA]

Ozzie Osmond said:

. The idiots in Whitehall and our town halls think they can just go on raiding the same bottomless piggy-bank for ever.

The Family Home Tax being the latest raid.....

[FiF]

Meanwhile on his regular phone in radio show thet Deputy PM one Cletus Clogg Feckwit on air had direct advice for a pensioner complaining about the proposal as he didn't have the cash to pay the tax on the house he'd lived in for decades, "Well sell your house then"

LibDims to be annihilated and Cloggy to lose his seat. Tenner posted with bookies.

[JDRoest]

crankedup said:

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.

It's not that it'll never see the light of day - it's the fact that someone could propose it in the first place and that the party are quite happy to discuss it, rather than sooting it down instantly in flames (which is exactly what should happen).

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

Meanwhile on his regular phone in radio show the Deputy PM one Cletus Clogg Feckwit...

FiF said:

...on air had direct advice for a pensioner complaining about the proposal as he didn't have the cash to pay the tax on the house he'd lived in for decades, "Well sell your house then"

LibDims to be annihilated and Cloggy to lose his seat. Tenner posted with bookies.

I sincerely hope you win your bet, it would give some basis for optimism over the state of the electorate at large.

[DonkeyApple]

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.

That doesn't make sense. Not sure you have read the post, just made another assumption.

It's a cost that is known upfront so has little relevance. The key is what is done with what is an important and sensible source of income.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Probably the bin collection is paid for from the CT but it isn't a factor in determining what band a house is in, that's all.

As for your last paragraph, sadly it does seem the easiest way to live these days but I'm sure, reading your other posts that, like me, you just wouldn't be able to live like that. Unfortunately many do and we are the ones supporting them.

I wonder when the tipping point, contributors v spongers, will be reached and no amount of tax theft will maintain the balance?

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

The key is what is done with what is an important and sensible source of income.

This is the crux of the matter.

I recently gained planning permission for a self-build. The 106 agreement was somewhere in the region of £8000. It was only after my architect asked the council to justify where £4000 of this was going that the council admitted that they could not identify where it was going to be spent so had not option but to reduce the 106 by this £4000. That £4000, had it not been challenged, could have ended up being spent on anything and, more importantly, on something totally unconnected with the impact of my house build.

I'm all for using the money sensibly but in many cases it is not.

To make matters worse, the CIL which has now replaced the 106 agreements would have meant my payment would have been in the region of £24,000. It's simply a tax on housebuilding and in my case would have been totally out of proportion to the impact of my build.

[Newc]

REALIST123 said:

I wonder when the tipping point, contributors v spongers, will be reached and no amount of tax theft will maintain the balance?

Well we're already there really, as that's kind of a definition of running a structural deficit (though I take your point that we're not at 100% tax rates. Yet.)

And just think how much worse it will be when interest rates tick back up to normal levels and we are paying 4% plus every year on more than a trillion pounds worth of debt.

[audidoody]

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.

Off Topic: but have you engaged 'no win no fee' specialists to appeal? After a year-long appeal (Islington) our business (EC1) just been awarded a £20,000 refund of business rates overcharges by Islington Council over the last four years and reduced going forward by £500 a month. Amazing that you have to go through this to deal with Valuation Office cock-ups.

[audidoody]

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.

Off Topic: but have you engaged 'no win no fee' specialists to appeal? After a year-long appeal (Islington) our business (EC1) just been awarded a £20,000 refund of business rates overcharges by Islington Council over the last four years and reduced going forward by £500 a month. Amazing that you have to go through this to deal with Valuation Office cock-ups.

[audidoody]

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.

Off Topic: but have you engaged 'no win no fee' specialists to appeal? After a year-long appeal (Islington) our business (EC1) just been awarded a £20,000 refund of business rates overcharges by Islington Council over the last four years and reduced going forward by £500 a month. Amazing that you have to go through this to deal with Valuation Office cock-ups.

[crankedup]

DonkeyApple 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.

That doesn't make sense. Not sure you have read the post, just made another assumption.

It's a cost that is known upfront so has little relevance. The key is what is done with what is an important and sensible source of income.

I genuinely do not understand how my response makes no sense to you. We all know the developers have to contribute to infrastructure build within the overall planning permission granted to a developer on a larger development. In my patch that means anything from new village hall/sports-fields/shop(s) any additions that contribute to the overall development sustainability. The financial contribution comes from the developers Company. Obviously the developer will cost in these arrangements within the development costs.
The other issue regarding social housing, IIRC its 30 years or so that has been a requirement of developers to include this element within the proposed housing development.

[crankedup]

JDRoest said:

crankedup said:

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.

It's not that it'll never see the light of day - it's the fact that someone could propose it in the first place and that the party are quite happy to discuss it, rather than sooting it down instantly in flames (which is exactly what should happen).

True! but if we knew of all the half baked schemes and proposals offered up by these 'think tanks' we would all be rolling in the aisles for ever more I reckon. What can be of concern is Governments liking to 'leak' daft ideas like this one we are discussing and then bring in a watered down version on the back of it.

[turbobloke]

[NDA]

crankedup said:

JDRoest said:

crankedup said:

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.

It's not that it'll never see the light of day - it's the fact that someone could propose it in the first place and that the party are quite happy to discuss it, rather than sooting it down instantly in flames (which is exactly what should happen).

True! but if we knew of all the half baked schemes and proposals offered up by these 'think tanks' we would all be rolling in the aisles for ever more I reckon. What can be of concern is Governments liking to 'leak' daft ideas like this one we are discussing and then bring in a watered down version on the back of it.

If the three of us sat down and thought about ways to get the economy moving, would it include taxing jewellery or taxing the family home? No, I don't think it would. In fact taxing assets that have already been heavily taxed is the stuff of nightmares.

In fact I wouldn't introduce more taxes as I don't see that penalising the middle class with deeper and deeper taxes is the way forward. Apart from anything else it introduces a deep and corrosive malaise into the core of the very people who are equipped to kick start Britain.

That sounded rather melancholy.

[mattnunn]

So I see the labour party have put forward a motion to support their version of the mansion tax. You don't have to be some kind of political insider to realise that it's an attempt to split the lib dems from the coalition whip.

But in doing so haven't they highlighted the complete hypocrisy and sham that is our party political system. The lib dems won't support the labour mansion tax proposal (which as far as I can see is a carbon copy of theirs) whilst at the same time making noises to the affect that they still support the idea in general.

Are these man of principle or mice?

[anonymous-user]

mattnunn said:

Are these man of principle or mice?

[otolith]

mattnunn said:

Are these man of principle or mice?

[BlackLabel]

Even the Lib Dems now think this policy is not feasible and have ditched it as a policy pledge now. However, they wish to replace it by reforming council tax.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libe...

[KingNothing]

BlackLabel said:

Even the Lib Dems now think this policy is not feasible and have ditched it as a policy pledge now. However, they wish to replace it by reforming council tax.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libe...

Meh, much of muchness from the mealy mouthed wkers. Good point on ditching "mansion tax" but just sounds like they going to implement something of the same just under a different name if they get the chance. Adding additional council tax bands for higher value properties is just as punitive, as a "mansion tax" as far as I'm concerned.