mansion tax

[London424]

walm said:

rovermorris999 said:

mondeoman said:

10 men and the beer bill.

Thats all I'm going to say.

Absolutely. The envious never learn.

As per my last post - the tax situation simply isn't that much better elsewhere!
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!

Tell that to all the French people that live in London...now I wonder why they moved across the water? Have a guess.

[turbobloke]

NomduJour said:

turbobloke said:

Move it out to SW18 and it'd be a snip at £800k to £900k

Think you'd be lucky, even in Southfields.

At the time it (the property I refer to) was on I'd have been lucky, but it wasn't lucky...not with me anyway.

I appreciate that this was more than a couple of months ago so the SW18 4-bed terrace in question will have appreciated in value in the customary manner.

Was it purely random that you ignored the Grimsby equivalent

[walm]

London424 said:

walm said:

rovermorris999 said:

mondeoman said:

10 men and the beer bill.

Thats all I'm going to say.

Absolutely. The envious never learn.

As per my last post - the tax situation simply isn't that much better elsewhere!
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!

Tell that to all the French people that live in London...now I wonder why they moved across the water? Have a guess.

So the tax situation is worse in France?
Exactly my point!

[NomduJour]

turbobloke said:

Was it purely random that you ignored the Grimsby equivalent

Having been, I try to ignore Grimsby where possible.

[London424]

walm said:

London424 said:

walm said:

rovermorris999 said:

mondeoman said:

10 men and the beer bill.

Thats all I'm going to say.

Absolutely. The envious never learn.

As per my last post - the tax situation simply isn't that much better elsewhere!
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!

Tell that to all the French people that live in London...now I wonder why they moved across the water? Have a guess.

So the tax situation is worse in France?
Exactly my point!

But you're advocating making the tax situation here worse...

[walm]

"£2m = mansion" is an unfortunate gutter press invention.

I still maintain that whoever lives in that house can probably afford to pay a little more tax.

Certainly they can afford it more easily than the family in Grimsby who happen to live in a house of similar physical characteristics.

I think people are struggling to understand how truly fortunate the guys in Fulham are.

Say as suggested prices are up 20% recently, so that house used to be worth £1.65m.
For doing precisely NO WORK, that house owner has earned £350k - tax free.

If your average wage earner is taking home £20k net - this guy has earned the equivalent of OVER SEVENTEEN YEARS of the average UK residents income - by simply being fortunate enough to live in the right place.

Now of course he has to move house to somewhere smaller to crystalise the gain but still!

[walm]

London424 said:

But you're advocating making the tax situation here worse...

Yes - a little worse, for sure. I don't think it would be bad enough to force people to move country - because many other countries are worse than the UK+mansion tax situation would be and France happens to be a good example of that.

[London424]

walm said:

London424 said:

But you're advocating making the tax situation here worse...

Yes - a little worse, for sure. I don't think it would be bad enough to force people to move country - because many other countries are worse than the UK+mansion tax situation would be and France happens to be a good example of that.

For now...but first it's a mansion tax, then income tax gets put up to 50% by the idiots (See Lib Dem or Labour), etc etc.

France votes out their idiots who then amend their tax laws and then guess what, it's suddenly quite an attractive proposition.

[Du1point8]

turbobloke said:

Rovinghawk said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Only 2 bathrooms- what a hovel!

I don't agree with wealth taxes but don't tell me that's a pauper's home.

Move it out to SW18 and it'd be a snip at £800k to £900k, given it's similar to one I was looking at more out of humour than interest.

Transplant it to Grimsby and it's yours for £180k.

Just over £2 million for 2000 sq ft in SW4

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

Huge over extended normal 60s house in SW18 that someone is squeezing the living space out of, Without the extension in the roof it would be a 4 bed worth £2 million

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

[will_]

walm said:

Now of course he has to move house to somewhere smaller to crystalise the gain but still!

Yes, that small problem!

Having cash on paper is very different to having cash in hand.

Obviously you need the cash in hand to pay the tax bill. How do you do that from an asset unless you sell it? Of course you can remortgage (if you can afford the repayments).

If you have a valuable asset (which has gained value through no choice or fault of your own) you haven't actually received any benefit of that value until you actually realise it. Yer you're expected to be taxed on the basis that you're wealthy enough to have bought that asset at current prices?

It seems deeply unjust for people to be forced from their homes simply because the value of that asset has increased and the government see them as easy pickings because kicking "the rich" (however loosely defined) is currently popular.

[Justayellowbadge]

will_ said:

Yes, that small problem!

Having cash on paper is very different to having cash in hand.

Obviously you need the cash in hand to pay the tax bill. How do you do that from an asset unless you sell it? Of course you can remortgage (if you can afford the repayments).

If you have a valuable asset (which has gained value through no choice or fault of your own) you haven't actually received any benefit of that value until you actually realise it. Yer you're expected to be taxed on the basis that you're wealthy enough to have bought that asset at current prices?

It seems deeply unjust for people to be forced from their homes simply because the value of that asset has increased and the government see them as easy pickings because kicking "the rich" (however loosely defined) is currently popular.

Careful, you'll get the bedroom tax brigade going.

[poocherama]

I don't normally enter into these discussions but...I'll get clobbered by a mansion tax.

Politics aside the realities for me are:

- My house doesn't provide me with an income - the more of my money the government of the day relieves me of in tax the less I have to spend at my own discretion. Essential living expenses aside this invariably includes: Restaurants, entertainment, clothing, holidays, cars, consumer electronics etc - all of which provide employment, tax revenue etc...

- I HAVE to maintain a certain level of earnings just to stay in my own home. No career breaks, sabbaticals, timeouts etc. God forbid I should be unemployed / business go under - Tax payable come rain or shine...

[FiF]

One thing I would like to see from the "well a few oldies will have to move shower" is a fully costed example.

Two properties with all fees taxes and costs shown. Such a move shouldn't involve moving from Laandan to Grimsby as part of the deal. Let's say the move should be within a single GP practice catchment area.

Put up the links to the properties and the costs. Include an allowance for some repairs and decorations, soft furnishings etc for the new place.

Then there might be some respect for the opinions that it's easy just to move.

[oyster]

turbobloke said:

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.

Agreed it is already an insane amount - with a hole in the bucket, pouring even more water in is not the solution.

I agree with that - honestly!
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!).

OK fair enough but the LibDims themselves say that if they were in charge and could implement their proposed mansion tax it would raise £1.2bn and that sum is not going to fix the deficit which stands at around £22bn never mind the national debt. It may have an overall negative impact if other tax-takes (e.g. income, corporation, CGT) reduce when people in the national and international marketplace see that LD or similar taxhappyclappy idiots are in charge of the UK economy and that enterprise and successful individuals are not welcome but penalised - and worse, the innocent occupants of barely-above-standard family homes in London are being demonised.

Call me green-eyed if you want but to refer to a £2m property as barely-above-standard, even in London shows a complete inability to grasp the reality of the debate. All it does is play into the hands of those suggesting the better-off should pay more tax.

In London that is nearly 5 times the average property value. How can 450% be your definition of barely above 100%?


Apart from anything else, what barely-above-standard salary would someone need to buy this barely-above-standard house?

[NomduJour]

oyster said:

Apart from anything else, what barely-above-standard salary would someone need to buy this barely-above-standard house?

In the vast majority of cases, not the half a million the mortgage multiples would suggest. Lots of (free) equity, and, for anyone starting out in the last fifteen to twenty years, probably a fat bung of already-taxed cash from elsewhere.

[walm]

No one said it would be easy.

And as it turns out they wouldn't have to under the current (never to happen) plan:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/get_the_facts_mansion_ta...

LibDem Propaganda says:
What about pensioners?
Pensioners living in homes over £2m would be able to delay paying the Mansion Tax until their property changed hands.

[Justayellowbadge]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Indeed. Considered nationally, it's a 200k house in a 2mil location.

[The Wookie]

walm said:

The Wookie said:

Where did I say that exactly?

The Wookie said:

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.

Fair enough and well done for reading the letter of what I said, but you've completely missed my point which was that by forcing people to move you have to accept that plenty will simply take their wealth elsewhere.

[turbobloke]

oyster said:

turbobloke said:

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.

Agreed it is already an insane amount - with a hole in the bucket, pouring even more water in is not the solution.

I agree with that - honestly!
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!).

OK fair enough but the LibDims themselves say that if they were in charge and could implement their proposed mansion tax it would raise £1.2bn and that sum is not going to fix the deficit which stands at around £22bn never mind the national debt. It may have an overall negative impact if other tax-takes (e.g. income, corporation, CGT) reduce when people in the national and international marketplace see that LD or similar taxhappyclappy idiots are in charge of the UK economy and that enterprise and successful individuals are not welcome but penalised - and worse, the innocent occupants of barely-above-standard family homes in London are being demonised.

Call me green-eyed if you want but to refer to a £2m property as barely-above-standard, even in London shows a complete inability to grasp the reality of the debate.

Far from it. There have been several London properties posted that are barely above average but because it's London they attract silly money. A 4-bed terraced house up for £2m is indeed a house that's barely above average, which could reasonably be a 3-bed terraced house. Clearly the price isn't barely above average on a national basis but the discussion and my earlier post specifically referred to London, but you forgot to put that bit in bold for some reason.

[anonymous-user]

walm said:

"£2m = mansion" is an unfortunate gutter press invention.

I still maintain that whoever lives in that house can probably afford to pay a little more tax.

Certainly they can afford it more easily than the family in Grimsby who happen to live in a house of similar physical characteristics.

I think people are struggling to understand how truly fortunate the guys in Fulham are.

Say as suggested prices are up 20% recently, so that house used to be worth £1.65m.
For doing precisely NO WORK, that house owner has earned £350k - tax free.

If your average wage earner is taking home £20k net - this guy has earned the equivalent of OVER SEVENTEEN YEARS of the average UK residents income - by simply being fortunate enough to live in the right place.

Now of course he has to move house to somewhere smaller to crystalise the gain but still!

Two points:

First, everyone can afford to pay "a little more tax". You can pare anyone's expenditure - no matter how little they earn - down to pure essentials, and assert that anything over that can be paid in tax. However, the Government's role is not to extract every last penny of "surplus" money from the general population.

Secondly, you say that a house owner has "earned" £X by reason of doing absolutely nothing when house prices rise. Bullst. It's a paper profit. If you want to tax that "earning" remove the CGT exemption for principal private residences. Take the money on a sale.

Looked at another way, if you tax a home owner on this notional unrealised earning, are you going to offer a rebate if house prices fall?