Discussion
will_ said:
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly. There are only a couple of hundred thousand British people who can afford £2m houses. Whereas there are millions of overseas who can and London is very desireable. Pushing Londoners out to the sticks or suburbia is going to impact those already living there and the London properties will go to overseas holders. In short it won't slow house price inflation but quite possibly increase it as demand for sub £2m homes is artificially accelerated or people do what we do and have two homes, one for the working week and one for the weekend.
And who benefits the most from a house-price boom via increased SDLT, CGT and IHT......Du1point8 said:
will_ said:
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly. There are only a couple of hundred thousand British people who can afford £2m houses. Whereas there are millions of overseas who can and London is very desireable. Pushing Londoners out to the sticks or suburbia is going to impact those already living there and the London properties will go to overseas holders. In short it won't slow house price inflation but quite possibly increase it as demand for sub £2m homes is artificially accelerated or people do what we do and have two homes, one for the working week and one for the weekend.
And who benefits the most from a house-price boom via increased SDLT, CGT and IHT......Justayellowbadge said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
To suggest that someone living in a 4 bed mid terrace worth £2m+ in Fulham is just as standard as someone owning a similar place in somewhere nearby but where the value is only say £750k is nonsense.
I have some sympathy when you compare prices in London and the SE with those of the North, because there's a vast salary gap. But someone owning a house for £2m in any part of London is seriously wealthy. Really wealthy. Top 0.5% probably.
fulham911club said:
walm said:
I was analysing Aggreko the other day and their FD gets £400k basic. That's a FTSE 100 company with £4bn market cap.
Plus the same again in cash bonus, plus nearly 200k in pension, plus he owns / has rights over a fair few shares....oyster said:
But location is THE major factor in the cost of property. To ignore that makes a complete mockery of any opinion you might offer on such an issue.
To suggest that someone living in a 4 bed mid terrace worth £2m+ in Fulham is just as standard as someone owning a similar place in somewhere nearby but where the value is only say £750k is nonsense.
I have some sympathy when you compare prices in London and the SE with those of the North, because there's a vast salary gap. But someone owning a house for £2m in any part of London is seriously wealthy. Really wealthy. Top 0.5% probably.
Indeed. But to be "fair" why should it be based on un-cashed "wealth". Why, because an asset has a hypothetical market value, should there be a tax on it?To suggest that someone living in a 4 bed mid terrace worth £2m+ in Fulham is just as standard as someone owning a similar place in somewhere nearby but where the value is only say £750k is nonsense.
I have some sympathy when you compare prices in London and the SE with those of the North, because there's a vast salary gap. But someone owning a house for £2m in any part of London is seriously wealthy. Really wealthy. Top 0.5% probably.
If it were a tax on 4-bed houses that would be fair. If it were a tax on your leftover income (after your expenses) then that would be a tax on what you can afford. But if a chap in Fulham has £2k left over at the end of the year after paying the higher costs of living in London, is it fair to tax him £20k when the chap in Sunderland in a similar house has £5k left?
The constant problem with taxing asset value is that many assets do not provide any income from which to pay the tax from. In which case you need to pay for it out of earned income - so effectively a higher income tax. And obviously a tax on income isn't a tax on assets or wealth at all. It particularly hurts those on low incomes but who happen (by chance) to have a high-value asset.
You can have significant wealth but have little cash. That is the point. A tax doesn't address this issue bar being forced to sell the asset. No doubt that will please some sectors of society, regardless of the circumstances of the home-owner.
oyster said:
fulham911club said:
walm said:
I was analysing Aggreko the other day and their FD gets £400k basic. That's a FTSE 100 company with £4bn market cap.
Plus the same again in cash bonus, plus nearly 200k in pension, plus he owns / has rights over a fair few shares....oyster said:
fulham911club said:
walm said:
I was analysing Aggreko the other day and their FD gets £400k basic. That's a FTSE 100 company with £4bn market cap.
Plus the same again in cash bonus, plus nearly 200k in pension, plus he owns / has rights over a fair few shares....I don't see them earning enough to even push to a million pound house at today's prices!
fulham911club said:
oyster said:
fulham911club said:
walm said:
I was analysing Aggreko the other day and their FD gets £400k basic. That's a FTSE 100 company with £4bn market cap.
Plus the same again in cash bonus, plus nearly 200k in pension, plus he owns / has rights over a fair few shares....He made almost zero bonus the year before, so it's at risk and many mortgage providers wouldn't include it in their affordability calcs.
Although I have to admit the pension is pretty generous!
His shares and options are accrued from previous years so don't count either.
fulham911club said:
oyster said:
But someone owning a house for £2m in any part of London is seriously wealthy. Really wealthy. Top 0.5% probably.
On paper but not in cash terms. That house was only 175m2 - hardly huge so if you have 2 or 3 children then a bit of a squeeze tbh.It would however send entirely the wrong signal to potential future net-contributors thinking of investing and/or living in Britain. It would do nothing to incentivise home grown talent either. We need to be a place where people with something to offer (tax for one) want to live and do business.
A mansion tax would be daft, but there are daft politicians and daft voters.
oyster said:
Justayellowbadge said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
To suggest that someone living in a 4 bed mid terrace worth £2m+ in Fulham is just as standard as someone owning a similar place in somewhere nearby but where the value is only say £750k is nonsense.
I have some sympathy when you compare prices in London and the SE with those of the North, because there's a vast salary gap. But someone owning a house for £2m in any part of London is seriously wealthy. Really wealthy. Top 0.5% probably.
It's the location that is worth the money, the house is average.
turbobloke said:
fulham911club said:
oyster said:
But someone owning a house for £2m in any part of London is seriously wealthy. Really wealthy. Top 0.5% probably.
On paper but not in cash terms. That house was only 175m2 - hardly huge so if you have 2 or 3 children then a bit of a squeeze tbh.It would however send entirely the wrong signal to potential future net-contributors thinking of investing and/or living in Britain. It would do nothing to incentivise home grown talent either. We need to be a place where people with something to offer (tax for one) want to live and do business.
A mansion tax would be daft, but there are daft politicians and daft voters.
Arguing against it by saying £2m houses are only pokey, squalid terraces in posh parts of London isn't the best way to convince joe public!!
oyster said:
turbobloke said:
fulham911club said:
oyster said:
But someone owning a house for £2m in any part of London is seriously wealthy. Really wealthy. Top 0.5% probably.
On paper but not in cash terms. That house was only 175m2 - hardly huge so if you have 2 or 3 children then a bit of a squeeze tbh.It would however send entirely the wrong signal to potential future net-contributors thinking of investing and/or living in Britain. It would do nothing to incentivise home grown talent either. We need to be a place where people with something to offer (tax for one) want to live and do business.
A mansion tax would be daft, but there are daft politicians and daft voters.
Arguing against it by saying £2m houses are only pokey, squalid terraces in posh parts of London isn't the best way to convince joe public!!
What some have said, and others have agreed with it, is that a 4-bed terraced house is not a mansion and is barely above average - which can reasonably be seen as a 3-bed terraced house. Yet in London such 4-bed terraced properties can be worth over £2m.
In your world, oyster, you see "£2m house" and you see green. It's nothing more complicated than jealousy.
Those people who bought houses 25 years ago, many of who were postmen, bus drivers etc etc. They weren't "rich" then and they would only be rich now on paper if they sell their houses. They've only seen the value of their houses go up because the government has allowed money laundering on a MASS scale and hasn't protected the housing market in the UK (specifically London) like most other countries do.
These home owners probably do NOT want their houses to rise to over £2m! But yet they'll see a tax for no other reason than the fact that successive governments have been happy to allow people to wash dirty money through the London property market. THAT is who they should have been taxing, not UK citizens who have lived here all their life. The housing stock they live in was clearly designed for the lower end of the housing market, but now are worth millions. Council houses are at insane prices now in central London.
It's turned into a f**king joke and the best the government have come up with is a mansion tax? There are LOADS of ways around this, but that would involve taxing the laundering, or stopping it altogether. But they don't want the money train to stop.
Those people who bought houses 25 years ago, many of who were postmen, bus drivers etc etc. They weren't "rich" then and they would only be rich now on paper if they sell their houses. They've only seen the value of their houses go up because the government has allowed money laundering on a MASS scale and hasn't protected the housing market in the UK (specifically London) like most other countries do.
These home owners probably do NOT want their houses to rise to over £2m! But yet they'll see a tax for no other reason than the fact that successive governments have been happy to allow people to wash dirty money through the London property market. THAT is who they should have been taxing, not UK citizens who have lived here all their life. The housing stock they live in was clearly designed for the lower end of the housing market, but now are worth millions. Council houses are at insane prices now in central London.
It's turned into a f**king joke and the best the government have come up with is a mansion tax? There are LOADS of ways around this, but that would involve taxing the laundering, or stopping it altogether. But they don't want the money train to stop.
NDA said:
babatunde said:
who do you think put in place policies that allow you as an individual to acquire so much more wealth than 99% of your fellow citizens. the tax you pay is a small price.
Nobody did. I worked harder than most, risked my savings.... We are fast turning into a society where success is something to envy rather than applaud - 'you can afford to shell out more cash mate' is the attitude.
Well if it's the policies that do it, why doesn't everyone have the same level of wealth? So by your reasoning, babatunde, anyone who hasn't must be a right f**king idiot?
I'll ask the question: have you, babatunde, acquired so much wealth? If not, why not? The policies are clearly there and no individual needs do more than the other. Your comments would imply that you'd like to very seriously stupid if you haven't acquired that wealth.
gumshoe said:
NDA said:
babatunde said:
who do you think put in place policies that allow you as an individual to acquire so much more wealth than 99% of your fellow citizens. the tax you pay is a small price.
Nobody did. I worked harder than most, risked my savings.... We are fast turning into a society where success is something to envy rather than applaud - 'you can afford to shell out more cash mate' is the attitude.
Well if it's the policies that do it, why doesn't everyone have the same level of wealth? So by your reasoning, babatunde, anyone who hasn't must be a right f**king idiot?
I'll ask the question: have you, babatunde, acquired so much wealth? If not, why not? The policies are clearly there and no individual needs do more than the other. Your comments would imply that you'd like to very seriously stupid if you haven't acquired that wealth.
Some of the posters on here constantly amaze me with their stupidity and ignorance. Most who have made some money did it DESPITE the policies of successive governments, not because of.
REALIST123 said:
gumshoe said:
NDA said:
babatunde said:
who do you think put in place policies that allow you as an individual to acquire so much more wealth than 99% of your fellow citizens. the tax you pay is a small price.
Nobody did. I worked harder than most, risked my savings.... We are fast turning into a society where success is something to envy rather than applaud - 'you can afford to shell out more cash mate' is the attitude.
Well if it's the policies that do it, why doesn't everyone have the same level of wealth? So by your reasoning, babatunde, anyone who hasn't must be a right f**king idiot?
I'll ask the question: have you, babatunde, acquired so much wealth? If not, why not? The policies are clearly there and no individual needs do more than the other. Your comments would imply that you'd like to very seriously stupid if you haven't acquired that wealth.
Some of the posters on here constantly amaze me with their stupidity and ignorance. Most who have made some money did it DESPITE the policies of successive governments, not because of.
gumshoe said:
In your world, oyster, you see "£2m house" and you see green. It's nothing more complicated than jealousy.
I don't think it is jealousy.Joe public sees someone in a £2m house and presumes that such a person can "afford" £20k a year in extra tax. And you can't blame them, because the rhetoric of the last few years has been to kick the "rich" and make the pips squeak - that's what giving the Lib Dems a sniff of power does and that's no surprise. You have the MPs at the trough with their proposed pay increases and expenses trying out populist policies which will only affect a minority of people (and most likely not the MPs), and anyway they're "the rich". You can understand the lack of sympathy even if you don't agree with it.
That forgets that the £20k of tax has to come from somewhere other than the asset. Alternatively the asset has to be sold to pay the tax. The asset has no actual cash value until that value is crystalised - yes, you can take a loan out against it, but if you're not on a high income how are you going to service it year after year?
Owning a £2m house doesn't mean you can afford to buy one (if you see what I mean). It certainly doesn't mean that you can afford to pay taxes out of income against uncrystalised "wealth".
To force someone to sell their family home in order to pay additional tax (given that the house was paid for out of taxed income in the first place) is crass. But to the man in the street, it doesn't matter.
Hopefully if some of these pensioners do have to sell their homes they'll do the decent thing and piss the proceeds up the wall (because, of course, 40% will go in IHT when the die anyway), leaving themselves to be cared for at great expense to the state - and wipe that smug look off Danny Alexander's face (not, of course, that he'll be anywhere near government at that time and probably couldn't care less).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff