Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
IroningMan said:
Just how many £1 billion-plus companies are there? I respectfully suggest that the more typical 'middle manager' is rather more leased 520d than 750il - and the only time he gets to see the inside of a £2m pad is when he gets up early enough to catch Cribs on a Saturday morning.
Absolutely, a typical 'middle manager' outside London would be lucky to gross £50-£60k. Many (most imo) people with significant equity in their houses bought cheap a long time ago in an area where prices have soared, nothing to do with earnings or wealth. It's not really 'wealth' if the money is tied up in the family home, there's no financial benefit unless it can be cashed in, which in many cases it can't due to family/work commitments to an area.
most folks see politicians of all flavours riding a gravy train, see that a few select public schools produce those in power, see that Cam and Osb et al, who are not poor by any standards are also on that gravy train, see bankers ( who they feel caused this mess) earning loadsamoney and not really paying the price for what they view as bringing this country to its knees, and they want the wealthy to pay a price. And to an awful lot of folks outside London anyone living in a £2m house is very rich, and part of that gravy train and should be brought to justice for what they have done. A mansion tax seems to them a good idea. REgardless of the facts about who is rich or not, who caused the current demise of the UK, or who is really on that gravy train. And nothing anyone who earns a lot of money ( over 60-100K a year) says is going to change that view.
This may have been asked and answered before but...who decides the value of a house? As an owner I can attach a sale price of £2mil on my place tomorrow. It won't ever sell as it's worth a lot less than that. Conversely if I had a place that I purchased for £1 mil 10 years ago and "theoretically" was above £2 mil now, couldn't I just say I'd take £1.99 mil but don't want to sell?
santona1937 said:
most folks see politicians of all flavours riding a gravy train, see that a few select public schools produce those in power, see that Cam and Osb et al, who are not poor by any standards are also on that gravy train, see bankers ( who they feel caused this mess) earning loadsamoney and not really paying the price for what they view as bringing this country to its knees, and they want the wealthy to pay a price. And to an awful lot of folks outside London anyone living in a £2m house is very rich, and part of that gravy train and should be brought to justice for what they have done. A mansion tax seems to them a good idea. REgardless of the facts about who is rich or not, who caused the current demise of the UK, or who is really on that gravy train. And nothing anyone who earns a lot of money ( over 60-100K a year) says is going to change that view.
So 'they want the wealthy to pay a price' when were you elected spokesbod for the braying envyist masses? As to the use of 'justice' in this context, ho ho ho.And nothing you say will change the fundamental flaws in the misguided idea of a mansion tax which is less likely to happen by the day.
turbobloke said:
santona1937 said:
most folks see politicians of all flavours riding a gravy train, see that a few select public schools produce those in power, see that Cam and Osb et al, who are not poor by any standards are also on that gravy train, see bankers ( who they feel caused this mess) earning loadsamoney and not really paying the price for what they view as bringing this country to its knees, and they want the wealthy to pay a price. And to an awful lot of folks outside London anyone living in a £2m house is very rich, and part of that gravy train and should be brought to justice for what they have done. A mansion tax seems to them a good idea. REgardless of the facts about who is rich or not, who caused the current demise of the UK, or who is really on that gravy train. And nothing anyone who earns a lot of money ( over 60-100K a year) says is going to change that view.
So 'they want the wealthy to pay a price' when were you elected spokesbod for the braying envyist masses? As to the use of 'justice' in this context, ho ho ho.And nothing you say will change the fundamental flaws in the misguided idea of a mansion tax which is less likely to happen by the day.
I did not say that is how I felt, but was reiterating the populist view of why the mansion tax was/is a good idea in the eyes of what you so condescendingly refer to the braying envyist masses. And it is the use of phrases such as that which make their point more forcefully as far as they are concerned. There is a lot of anger directed towards those who appear to have done well out of the current situation, and that anger is fuelled by those who Bray "we are all in this together" when patently that is not the case.#
Tis all well and good saying that policies such as the mansion tax are the policies of envy, but even the Romans realized that the mass populace needed to be kept happy and comfortable lest revolution ensue.
Personally I dont give a toss one way or the other.
santona1937 said:
turbobloke said:
santona1937 said:
most folks see politicians of all flavours riding a gravy train, see that a few select public schools produce those in power, see that Cam and Osb et al, who are not poor by any standards are also on that gravy train, see bankers ( who they feel caused this mess) earning loadsamoney and not really paying the price for what they view as bringing this country to its knees, and they want the wealthy to pay a price. And to an awful lot of folks outside London anyone living in a £2m house is very rich, and part of that gravy train and should be brought to justice for what they have done. A mansion tax seems to them a good idea. REgardless of the facts about who is rich or not, who caused the current demise of the UK, or who is really on that gravy train. And nothing anyone who earns a lot of money ( over 60-100K a year) says is going to change that view.
So 'they want the wealthy to pay a price' when were you elected spokesbod for the braying envyist masses? As to the use of 'justice' in this context, ho ho ho.And nothing you say will change the fundamental flaws in the misguided idea of a mansion tax which is less likely to happen by the day.
santona1937 said:
most folks see politicians of all flavours riding a gravy train, see that a few select public schools produce those in power, see that Cam and Osb et al, who are not poor by any standards are also on that gravy train, see bankers ( who they feel caused this mess) earning loadsamoney and not really paying the price for what they view as bringing this country to its knees, and they want the wealthy to pay a price. And to an awful lot of folks outside London anyone living in a £2m house is very rich, and part of that gravy train and should be brought to justice for what they have done. A mansion tax seems to them a good idea. REgardless of the facts about who is rich or not, who caused the current demise of the UK, or who is really on that gravy train. And nothing anyone who earns a lot of money ( over 60-100K a year) says is going to change that view.
Let me give you two scenarios:1. A couple, now in their early '70's bought a £40,000 house in Notting Hill on a £30,000 mortgage in 1975. They have lived there all their lives and now support themselves with a state pension, a £15,000 annuity and £6,000 from a few other investments. The £40,000 house is now worth £3.5 million. They will never see this 'wealth'. It exists on paper (unless they sell and move to the Shetlands). The 'wealth' will eventually be taxed and all go to the state and their benefactors.
2. A Russian businessman has acquired £3 billion since the dismantling of the Soviet Union. He decides to invest £1 billion in the London property market and buys aa couple of large houses in Belgravia.
According to the LibDems both will pay the same amount of 'mansion tax'.
That is why it is a such an ill-conceived populist policy of the worst kind.
Edited by audidoody on Friday 18th April 11:37
Not saying its not ill conceived ( Most policies by the Con led government are) or that it would achieve what people want, but that there are a lot of folks in the real world who feel that the snorting middle classes and the wealthy should be squeezed until it really really hurts, in every way possible, and a Mansion tax is one of those ways.
audidoody said:
A couple, now in their early '70's bought a £40,000 house in Notting Hill on a £30,000 mortgage in 1975.
In 1975 you could have bought half of Notting Hill for £40k, it was a s
t hole (still is, imo). Just goes to show how much luck there's been in the property game, certain areas have rocketed in price whilst others, even close by areas, have shown very modest gains in comparison. It's certainly true that you can be asset rich and cash poor, money tied up in the family home isn't true wealth as it's hard to realise. You only make an actual profit if and when you actually sell up without 'reinvesting' the money in a similarly priced property.
audidoody said:
santona1937 said:
most folks see politicians of all flavours riding a gravy train, see that a few select public schools produce those in power, see that Cam and Osb et al, who are not poor by any standards are also on that gravy train, see bankers ( who they feel caused this mess) earning loadsamoney and not really paying the price for what they view as bringing this country to its knees, and they want the wealthy to pay a price. And to an awful lot of folks outside London anyone living in a £2m house is very rich, and part of that gravy train and should be brought to justice for what they have done. A mansion tax seems to them a good idea. REgardless of the facts about who is rich or not, who caused the current demise of the UK, or who is really on that gravy train. And nothing anyone who earns a lot of money ( over 60-100K a year) says is going to change that view.
Let me give you two scenarios:1. A couple, now in their early '70's bought a £40,000 house in Notting Hill on a £30,000 mortgage in 1975. They have lived there all their lives and now support themselves with a state pension, a £15,000 annuity and £6,000 from a few other investments. The £40,000 house is now worth £3.5 million. They will never see this 'wealth'. It exists on paper (unless they sell and move to the Shetlands). The 'wealth' will eventually be taxed and all go to the state and their benefactors.
2. A Russian businessman has acquired £3 billion since the dismantling of the Soviet Union. He decides to invest £1 billion in the London property market and buys aa couple of large houses in Belgravia.
According to the LibDems both will pay the same amount of 'mansion tax'.
That is why it is a such an ill-conceived populist policy of the worst kind.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 18th April 11:37
FWIW, I think he's spot on as regards the views of the great mass. An easy way to appeal to that many voters is hard for a politician to turn down, unfortunately.
santona1937 said:
Not saying its not ill conceived ( Most policies by the Con led government are) or that it would achieve what people want, but that there are a lot of folks in the real world who feel that the snorting middle classes and the wealthy should be squeezed until it really really hurts, in every way possible, and a Mansion tax is one of those ways.
Let me throw you another example. A benefactor left me a Picasso painting bought in 1935 for £65. It is now worth many millions. It hangs on the wall of my two-bedroomed rented flat. I am more wealthy than the neighbours who own their £2.5 million house which has an outstanding £350,00 mortgage on it. Which of us is wealthy? Which of us should pay a tax based on an uncrystalised asset?No doubt there are also a lot of people in the 'real world' who think people from ethnic minorities should be repatriated to their ancestor's countries of origin. Should the Government of the day now formulate policy based on stupidity, ignorance, envy and prejudice?
Why do you think there is something intrinsically undesirable and evil about the 'wealthy' middle classes? " It is their taxes that are supporting your version of people in the real world.
Hurt them in every way possible". What kind of idiocy is this? What kind of country do "people in the real world" want where aspiration is considered anti-social and the rewards of hard work should be stolen by the state (no doubt to re-distribute to people in the real world who want to exist on handouts?
My advice to people who hate aspiration and people who honestly acquired 'wealth' through their own legal efforts and risk is to buy a one-way ticket to Cuba and/or North Korea. I'll carry their bags to the airport.
Edited by audidoody on Friday 18th April 12:58
audidoody said:
santona1937 said:
Not saying its not ill conceived ( Most policies by the Con led government are) or that it would achieve what people want, but that there are a lot of folks in the real world who feel that the snorting middle classes and the wealthy should be squeezed until it really really hurts, in every way possible, and a Mansion tax is one of those ways.
No doubt there are also a lot of people in the 'real world' who think people from ethnic minorities should be repatriated to their ancestor's countries of origin. Should the Government of the day now formulate policy based on stupidity, ignorance, envy and prejudice?audidoody said:
Why do you think there is something intrinsically undesirable and evil about the 'wealthy' middle classes? It is their taxes that are supporting your version of people in the real world.
They / we pay for everything.audidoody said:
"Hurt them in every way possible". What kind of idiocy is this?
It's the wishful thinking santona1937 variety i.e. same old. Dreamworld not the real world.
you just do not get it do you?
there are a lot of folks who think you are just wrong, perhaps the majority, and if it is not the majority it is certainly a large percentage. And when they vote to put policies like this into place you standing on the ramparts shouting, "but you are wrong, these are the politics of envy,of racism, of stupidity, this way leads to economic decline," etc etc, is not going to sway them one bit.
It would be far better to address their concerns now in a way that is acceptable to everyone, and not just to the "striver" in society.
there are a lot of folks who think you are just wrong, perhaps the majority, and if it is not the majority it is certainly a large percentage. And when they vote to put policies like this into place you standing on the ramparts shouting, "but you are wrong, these are the politics of envy,of racism, of stupidity, this way leads to economic decline," etc etc, is not going to sway them one bit.
It would be far better to address their concerns now in a way that is acceptable to everyone, and not just to the "striver" in society.
santona1937 said:
you just do not get it do you?
there are a lot of folks who think you are just wrong, perhaps the majority, and if it is not the majority it is certainly a large percentage. And when they vote to put policies like this into place you standing on the ramparts shouting, "but you are wrong, these are the politics of envy,of racism, of stupidity, this way leads to economic decline," etc etc, is not going to sway them one bit.
It would be far better to address their concerns now in a way that is acceptable to everyone, and not just to the "striver" in society.
But most government policies don't necessarily help the striver? The striver just gets on with things, and probably why he isn't all that well represented. And the fact that there are fewer of him. there are a lot of folks who think you are just wrong, perhaps the majority, and if it is not the majority it is certainly a large percentage. And when they vote to put policies like this into place you standing on the ramparts shouting, "but you are wrong, these are the politics of envy,of racism, of stupidity, this way leads to economic decline," etc etc, is not going to sway them one bit.
It would be far better to address their concerns now in a way that is acceptable to everyone, and not just to the "striver" in society.
Government policy panders to the masses and looks after it's own "network" of people. The striver gets f**ked by almost everyone.
gumshoe said:
But most government policies don't necessarily help the striver? The striver just gets on with things, and probably why he isn't all that well represented. And the fact that there are fewer of him.
Government policy panders to the masses and looks after it's own "network" of people. The striver gets f**ked by almost everyone.
The strivers aren't a minority. They're the majority of people in the UK.Government policy panders to the masses and looks after it's own "network" of people. The striver gets f**ked by almost everyone.
santona1937 said:
you just do not get it do you?
there are a lot of folks who think you are just wrong, perhaps the majority, and if it is not the majority it is certainly a large percentage. And when they vote to put policies like this into place you standing on the ramparts shouting, "but you are wrong, these are the politics of envy,of racism, of stupidity, this way leads to economic decline," etc etc, is not going to sway them one bit.
It would be far better to address their concerns now in a way that is acceptable to everyone, and not just to the "striver" in society.
Whilst you may well be right as far as that goes, perhaps you, and those masses, similarly don't get that you can't 'squeeze' the very wealthy by legislating. Whatever moves our governments make, for populist reasons or not, they are soon countered by those with both the wealth, intelligence and will to do so.there are a lot of folks who think you are just wrong, perhaps the majority, and if it is not the majority it is certainly a large percentage. And when they vote to put policies like this into place you standing on the ramparts shouting, "but you are wrong, these are the politics of envy,of racism, of stupidity, this way leads to economic decline," etc etc, is not going to sway them one bit.
It would be far better to address their concerns now in a way that is acceptable to everyone, and not just to the "striver" in society.
Why else are the real returns from any disproportionate tax always disappointing?
The only real way forward is to have a tax system where those contributing feel fairly treated and less inclined to take avoiding action.
Sadly, we're a long way from that so the battle continues with, as we have seen over recent years, only one winner. And it isn't the government or the masses you have alluded to.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff