Discussion
walm said:
If you live in a £2m mortgage free home as a pensioner there is no two ways about it - you are LOADED.
I admit that it can be uprooting to have to move house - certainly more uprooting than selling some shares or cashing some of your pension.
BUT DAMN! £2m!!
One thing's for sure, if I were retired and forced to sell my hypothetical £2 million pound house because of a Mansion Tax, I'd be spending it on a house in another country that didn't have one, preferably a country that didn't have such crap weather and roads.I admit that it can be uprooting to have to move house - certainly more uprooting than selling some shares or cashing some of your pension.
BUT DAMN! £2m!!
The Wookie said:
walm said:
If you live in a £2m mortgage free home as a pensioner there is no two ways about it - you are LOADED.
I admit that it can be uprooting to have to move house - certainly more uprooting than selling some shares or cashing some of your pension.
BUT DAMN! £2m!!
One thing's for sure, if I were retired and forced to sell my hypothetical £2 million pound house because of a Mansion Tax, I'd be spending it on a house in another country that didn't have one, preferably a country that didn't have such crap weather and roads.I admit that it can be uprooting to have to move house - certainly more uprooting than selling some shares or cashing some of your pension.
BUT DAMN! £2m!!
You might well do the math and work out your OVERALL tax bill on a country-per-country basis.
Then you would see how much it would cost you to live where.
I strongly doubt you would move to a country where you had to pay MORE even if they had no mansion tax.
Would you?
That just sounds irrational or incredibly churlish!
oyster said:
FiF said:
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.
How is that any different from any other tax bill that needs to be settled?LibDims to be annihilated and Cloggy to lose his seat. Tenner posted with bookies.
As to the use of the word 'pensioner' in a blatant attempt to garner sympathy for some old, poor codger - remember we're talking about £2m homes. And if he is indeed a pensioner, he's hardly likely to have that place loaded up with £1.9m of mortgage.
Simply reporting the facts, he was a pensioner, it's you in your mock green eyed outrage that's seems to be trying to garner up sympathy for your case.
As a pensioner he has less ability to adjust his earnings to pay up a vastly increased take from the Govt when he has done a lifetime of planning and adjusting as the rules change. This one seemed so arbitrary and unjust that even the LibDems want to drop it.
So he downsizes, and moves at the worst time of life, from an area that he is familiar with, neighbours he knows their good and bad sides, moves to a place possibly with a new gp practice, and into a new property where he has to discover all the faults and refurbishments needed that he's sorted on his old home, having paid a massive bundle to, solicitors, property agents, removal firms, and the grasping spendthrift government, plus as it will probably be smaller also getting rid of long owned possessions.
Ah stick it, you know what, I can't be arsed to discuss this any more, as posters like you and walm are going back on my ignore list to save me committing the offence of plagiarism from Deborah Hopkins Twitter comment.
rovermorris999 said:
mondeoman said:
10 men and the beer bill.
Thats all I'm going to say.
Absolutely. The envious never learn.Thats all I'm going to say.
So while the tenth man is welcome to leave - he won't because he would still end up paying close to $60 for his $10 meal even in another country!
walm said:
Well talking of green eyes... damn! Your garage!!
One minor car downsizing would cover a few years of a mansion tax I suspect!!
Of course I would rather NO ONE has to pay extra tax.
Of course I would rather the government stopped filling the pockets of work-shy baby-makers.
But right now the money has to come from somewhere.
And I firmly believe people getting upset because it is levied on the value of their house rather than their earnings - are getting stroppy over a minor detail.
And frankly don't understand the actual implications which are that VERY VERY few people would ever be FORCED to move house.
Take for example Mr NDA above. I strongly suspect that he could easily absorb say 2% per annum on every £1 above £2m in the value of his property.
That's an extra £10k on £2.5m property.
Which is LESS than raising the £150k PAYE limit from 40% to 50% if you earn £300k.
(That's £15k for those following.)
So many (already plenty wealthy) people would have been BETTER off with a mansion tax in 2009 (or whenever that 50% rate came in - I forget)!!
The problem is that you are not looking at the real facts here. One minor car downsizing would cover a few years of a mansion tax I suspect!!
Of course I would rather NO ONE has to pay extra tax.
Of course I would rather the government stopped filling the pockets of work-shy baby-makers.
But right now the money has to come from somewhere.
And I firmly believe people getting upset because it is levied on the value of their house rather than their earnings - are getting stroppy over a minor detail.
And frankly don't understand the actual implications which are that VERY VERY few people would ever be FORCED to move house.
Take for example Mr NDA above. I strongly suspect that he could easily absorb say 2% per annum on every £1 above £2m in the value of his property.
That's an extra £10k on £2.5m property.
Which is LESS than raising the £150k PAYE limit from 40% to 50% if you earn £300k.
(That's £15k for those following.)
So many (already plenty wealthy) people would have been BETTER off with a mansion tax in 2009 (or whenever that 50% rate came in - I forget)!!
The majority of £2m properties are in and around London. Now, in central London that money doesn't buy you much.
But at the same time a huge number of these properties are owned by corporates and overseas investor/owners.
And on top of this because of rampant house price inflation most owners of what are now £2m properties did not pay that for them so wouldn't actually be guaranteed to have the kind of income to finance such a tax.
Why is it that you would want British nationals to be taxed on the current market value of their home? Why would you want to see British nationals pushed further out from London as corporates and international buyers continue to mop up the market. What actual benefit would you gain from seeing old people forced into the abject stress of moving home? Why would you actually advocate putting people through that?
And let us not forget, whatever size property you live in, within your lifetime you would be hit by the mansion tax so why would you want something that is going to eventually screw you and your children?
It just seems a bit hateful and short sighted.
DonkeyApple said:
Why is it that you would want British nationals to be taxed on the current market value of their home? Why would you want to see British nationals pushed further out from London as corporates and international buyers continue to mop up the market. What actual benefit would you gain from seeing old people forced into the abject stress of moving home? Why would you actually advocate putting people through that?
And let us not forget, whatever size property you live in, within your lifetime you would be hit by the mansion tax so why would you want something that is going to eventually screw you and your children?
It just seems a bit hateful and short sighted.
I don't WANT any of those things. And frankly I am playing somewhat of a devil's advocate here because for many reasons I think the mansion tax is bad - just NONE of the reasons being presented here.And let us not forget, whatever size property you live in, within your lifetime you would be hit by the mansion tax so why would you want something that is going to eventually screw you and your children?
It just seems a bit hateful and short sighted.
It is bad because it would screw up the housing market even more.
It is bad because valuing the entire UK housing stock in real time is a gargantuan and impossible task.
It is bad because it is a step-change tax not flat rate (I don't know the technical lingo - it would be better if it were 1% on every house without an arbitrary cut off).
But going on the assumption that some extra tax revenue is needed - I don't see the mansion tax as such a terrible way to raise it that's all.
I genuinely don't hate someone who lives in a £2m house - good for them!
But the VAST majority of my friends who live in one - they are totally loaded and would be the first to admit that they could pretty easily afford to pay more tax!
Of course they would rather EVERYONE pays a little more tax rather than them but none of them feel particularly victimised.
I just see it as very similar to the introduction of the 50% rate.
OK some pensioners might have to move and that is very unfortunate - but I really struggle to feel that sorry for them.
NomduJour said:
walm said:
But right now the money has to come from somewhere.
The government collects an insane amount of money, that is not the problem. The government has too much money.
That budget deficit is just something the politicians cook up to turf pensioners out of their homes!
As the great Mugatu once said, I feel like I am taking crazy pills here.
walm said:
The Wookie said:
walm said:
If you live in a £2m mortgage free home as a pensioner there is no two ways about it - you are LOADED.
I admit that it can be uprooting to have to move house - certainly more uprooting than selling some shares or cashing some of your pension.
BUT DAMN! £2m!!
One thing's for sure, if I were retired and forced to sell my hypothetical £2 million pound house because of a Mansion Tax, I'd be spending it on a house in another country that didn't have one, preferably a country that didn't have such crap weather and roads.I admit that it can be uprooting to have to move house - certainly more uprooting than selling some shares or cashing some of your pension.
BUT DAMN! £2m!!
You might well do the math and work out your OVERALL tax bill on a country-per-country basis.
Then you would see how much it would cost you to live where.
I strongly doubt you would move to a country where you had to pay MORE even if they had no mansion tax.
Would you?
That just sounds irrational or incredibly churlish!
Someone in their 30s buys a totally modest, small family home for £400k and works for 25 years to pay off the debt.
They retire onto a small, fixed pension income. They have a few savings and have successfully raised two new tax payers.
Now, because house price inflation has smacked their property into the mansion tax bracket they are suddenly deemed to be wealthy by others and have to fund a tax based on the value of an asset that has little worth to them out of a small fixed income.
You see, the reality is that few of these £2m homes are owned and lived in by people will large incomes or low outgoings.
They are lived in by two types of Britons: the retired, on fixed incomes who bought the property on very modest income and are not wealthy by any means. And younger London workers who are financing the mortgage out of everything they earn because house price inflation has been so huge. They also are not weLthy. They don't have wads of cash floating around.
Now, let's look at the practicality of a pensioner downsizing. Have you ever seen the stress of moving home on A 70 year old? It is significant. Let's also look at the downsizing. They are not going to be moving out into the remote countryside at that age but moving closer to the urban environment where they can access bus travel, taxis, home help and medical services. So automatically they will be paying a premium for a smaller home.
So, do you think that forcing the elderly into the hugely expensive action of downsizing with all it's stresses and costs and taxes and property premiums is a humane act? Do you really want to force pensioners to move home? Really? No, of course not. No one would.
Let's look at the second group, the younger city professional. If they are forced out then even more properties are going to be bought by investors or overseas money. Why would you want that? What benefit does that give you? Workers forced to commute for longer and an even greater disconnect between London and Britain. You need to have the British in London because what happens in Londin does filter out to the whole of the UK.
So, you haven't yet stopped to work out that few of the owners of £2m properties are actually rich as you would think of it.
A property tax on British owned homes is insidious and will damage everyone. Tax the investors, tax the second homes, tax the overseas money. That will raise just as much but not only will it not damage Britons in their homes but it will reduce house price inflation and help every home owner and future home owner.
walm said:
Well talking of green eyes... damn! Your garage!!
One minor car downsizing would cover a few years of a mansion tax I suspect!!
Of course I would rather NO ONE has to pay extra tax.
Of course I would rather the government stopped filling the pockets of work-shy baby-makers.
But right now the money has to come from somewhere.
And I firmly believe people getting upset because it is levied on the value of their house rather than their earnings - are getting stroppy over a minor detail.
And frankly don't understand the actual implications which are that VERY VERY few people would ever be FORCED to move house.
Take for example Mr NDA above. I strongly suspect that he could easily absorb say 2% per annum on every £1 above £2m in the value of his property.
That's an extra £10k on £2.5m property.
Which is LESS than raising the £150k PAYE limit from 40% to 50% if you earn £300k.
(That's £15k for those following.)
So many (already plenty wealthy) people would have been BETTER off with a mansion tax in 2009 (or whenever that 50% rate came in - I forget)!!
Be careful what you wish for. A mansion tax with a threshold at £2 million will one day be a mansion tax with a threshold at £250,000, or even lower. Income tax started at 2% as a temporary measure to fund a war. Once taxes have been introduced, they tend not to remain set in aspic. One minor car downsizing would cover a few years of a mansion tax I suspect!!
Of course I would rather NO ONE has to pay extra tax.
Of course I would rather the government stopped filling the pockets of work-shy baby-makers.
But right now the money has to come from somewhere.
And I firmly believe people getting upset because it is levied on the value of their house rather than their earnings - are getting stroppy over a minor detail.
And frankly don't understand the actual implications which are that VERY VERY few people would ever be FORCED to move house.
Take for example Mr NDA above. I strongly suspect that he could easily absorb say 2% per annum on every £1 above £2m in the value of his property.
That's an extra £10k on £2.5m property.
Which is LESS than raising the £150k PAYE limit from 40% to 50% if you earn £300k.
(That's £15k for those following.)
So many (already plenty wealthy) people would have been BETTER off with a mansion tax in 2009 (or whenever that 50% rate came in - I forget)!!
I'm guessing you have neither a family, a house, nor parents/grandparents who might be affected by this proposal. You might view things rather differently were that the case.
walm said:
NomduJour said:
walm said:
But right now the money has to come from somewhere.
The government collects an insane amount of money, that is not the problem. The government has too much money.
That budget deficit is just something the politicians cook up to turf pensioners out of their homes!
As the great Mugatu once said, I feel like I am taking crazy pills here.
See what happens to the debt, which arose from excessive central spending, so how you think it will get better by feeding even more government spending rather than reducing it is probably best left to those on crazy pills.
Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan at the 1976 Labour Party conference said:
We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending.
He was clearly in need of a crazy pill.The 'Mansion' tax is an unfortunate turn of phrase, it should be 'a property that has benefited from an unparalleled and excessive hyper bubble'. Bit of a mouthful so it was shortened to mansion 
for those that have enjoyed this good fortune to carp about a tad more tax on such good fortune, especially during the worst recession since the 1920's, should really count their blessings rather than bleat.
for those that have enjoyed this good fortune to carp about a tad more tax on such good fortune, especially during the worst recession since the 1920's, should really count their blessings rather than bleat.DA - I think you make some great points and I rarely find myself disagreeing with you so please don't think of me as some green-eyed Guardian-reading commie. (Check my posting history in the finance forum for an idea of my day job for example...!)
HOWEVER - I think you are being a little sneaky with your numbers.
Your scenario makes a lot of sense. BUT it is very rare to have phenomenal house price inflation without wage inflation.
I know that has happened recently but bear with me.
If someone's £500k house is worth £2m 25 years later (perfectly possible) then isn't it reasonable to assume there has been pretty substantial wage inflation too? Not to mention that the market would be up a bunch and hence savings nicely compounding.
So again, someone who has a £2m central london property who has just retired after 25 years of paying down the mortgage is VERY likely to be quite well off.
If they initially bought on a 4x multiple of earnings and the earnings/value (aka affordability) has remained fairly constant (from already high levels today) then they would be earning something like £400k per annum without ANY non-inflation linked salary rises.
And they have £2m in capital (minimum).
HOWEVER - I think you are being a little sneaky with your numbers.
Your scenario makes a lot of sense. BUT it is very rare to have phenomenal house price inflation without wage inflation.
I know that has happened recently but bear with me.
If someone's £500k house is worth £2m 25 years later (perfectly possible) then isn't it reasonable to assume there has been pretty substantial wage inflation too? Not to mention that the market would be up a bunch and hence savings nicely compounding.
So again, someone who has a £2m central london property who has just retired after 25 years of paying down the mortgage is VERY likely to be quite well off.
If they initially bought on a 4x multiple of earnings and the earnings/value (aka affordability) has remained fairly constant (from already high levels today) then they would be earning something like £400k per annum without ANY non-inflation linked salary rises.
And they have £2m in capital (minimum).
turbobloke said:
NomduJour said:
walm said:
But right now the money has to come from somewhere.
The government collects an insane amount of money, that is not the problem. But I wasn't addressing the obvious and cretinous overspending - that seemed a given!
I was simply defending the idea of one avenue of raising tax revenue (needed or not!).
walm said:
turbobloke said:
NomduJour said:
walm said:
But right now the money has to come from somewhere.
The government collects an insane amount of money, that is not the problem. But I wasn't addressing the obvious and cretinous overspending - that seemed a given!
I was simply defending the idea of one avenue of raising tax revenue (needed or not!).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff