Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
Uncle John said:
Well if the threshold begins at 400k to become "The any decent house in the South East tax" as speculated above then civil unrest will return to Trafalgar Square.
Also as mentioned the whole thing is unworkable, there will be copious legal challenges and more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.
Only non tax payers revolt over taxes. Tax payers will simply vote for it and then pay it. At best they will then moan about it being unfair etc..Also as mentioned the whole thing is unworkable, there will be copious legal challenges and more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.
Symbolica said:
BlackLabel said:
18 months on and Labour still don't have a clue how this will actually work. When being interviewed by Andrew Neil about this Andy Burnham of Labour said the mansion tax would be introduced immediately on a Labour victory but could not say how the properties would be valued.
Initially he said they would use Land Registry records until it was pointed out that these only show the price at the last recorded sale. Then he said something like 'well we'll use the official house price valuation' before finally admitting he didn't have a clue how the value would be determined.
Was listening to that earlier on - he came across as a complete plum. Doesn't have a clue how it's going to work but he bloody loves it anyway.Initially he said they would use Land Registry records until it was pointed out that these only show the price at the last recorded sale. Then he said something like 'well we'll use the official house price valuation' before finally admitting he didn't have a clue how the value would be determined.
Du1point8 said:
Will Ed be paying his Mansion tax on his London property or will that come out of expenses?
It was valued at £2.3 million in 2012.
Though it was in his wife's name only so can't really expense that one.
Remember that he and his brother also dodged inheritance tax on the family home. Property clearly not theft for some lefties.It was valued at £2.3 million in 2012.
Though it was in his wife's name only so can't really expense that one.
Du1point8 said:
Will Ed be paying his Mansion tax on his London property or will that come out of expenses?
It was valued at £2.3 million in 2012.
Though it was in his wife's name only so can't really expense that one.
Either way, your point torpedoes the usual "politics of envy" rubbish that this sort of thing usually generates. It was valued at £2.3 million in 2012.
Though it was in his wife's name only so can't really expense that one.
It's not envy. This is different. It's stupidity.
audidoody said:
Is there to be a different tax band applied to people who have just paid £2,000,001 cash for a "mansion" than those who paid £300,000 for it 20 years ago?
Thought not.
No, why should there be? If you paid £300,000 20 years ago then you've made £1.7m without doing any work. Why should you be taxed less?Thought not.
audidoody said:
Is someone who sells their £4 million "mansion" and buys four £1 million homes less "rich" than they were before?
This situation would be better managed with an actual wealth tax rather than a mansion tax.audidoody said:
Is someone who lives in a £2 million 20-room "mansion" in Scotland situated in 50 acres of land going to pay more tax than someone who lives in a three-bedroom terrace "mansion" in a desirable London post code?
No
Not relevant.No
audidoody said:
Is there a legal precedent for applying tax on the notional paper value of an asset that has not been liquidated?
Probably not
Council tax?Probably not
audidoody said:
If house prices drop 20 per cent, will people who have been taxed on their £2,500,000 "mansion" get a refund if the "mansion" then become valued at £1,999,000?
Probably not
Why would you get a refund? If I earn £10k less next year, I can't get a refund on this year's tax.Probably not
audidoody said:
Will the "mansion tax" raise anything more than a billion of so quid (i.e. a rounding up error on the national balance sheet)?
No
Probably a lot less than Labour think it will raise.No
audidoody said:
Is someone who has bought their "mansion" with a £500,000 mortgage going to be allowed £500,000 tax relief compared with someone who has paid £2 million cash?
Who knows?
Again, a proper wealth tax could account for this.Who knows?
audidoody said:
Will the price of houses below £2 million increase substantially due to more demand for the sub-£2m bracket thus making homes for FTB's even more unaffordable?
Undoubtedly
Are many FTBs buying homes just under the £2m bracket?Undoubtedly
turbobloke said:
Olivera said:
It's a good idea, but I'd rather see it levied on properties over £1m, rather than £2m.
Any particular reason?1. Current council bands stop at 320k and above, meaning those with high value property pay a significantly lower amount (as a percentage of value) than those in low bands.
2. It's taxing large amounts of non-earned income (due to rapid house price inflation), which is fairer and more equitable than taxing labour or other earned income.
3. Higher property prices don't help grow the economy (in fact may do so in an opposite manner), so higher taxation in this area is preferred.
Olivera said:
A multitude of reasons
How the hell does the value of property on paper relate to an ability to service an arbitrary tax which will have to be funded from income?I seriously question human nature when people start spouting about "wealth" tax. The state has absolutely no business helping itself to the belongings of anyone.
Where to start with this. Spolit for choice really.
It's intended to appeal to the masses and p
s off people who (a) would be unlikely to vote Labour, and (b) don't amount to a big pile of votes anyway.
It's to be used to Save The NHS. Right. Annual NHS budget for 2014: £96.5bn. This will raise about £1.2bn. We're saved. Phew.
Other sources to save the NHS: big tobacco (windfall tax) and "tax avoiding hedge funds" (bad, evil bankers). So that's how Labout classifies the owners of valuable homes: on a par with big tobacco and evil bankers. Yeah. That makes sense.
No indications as to how properties will be valued, whether it is the equity or market value that's relevant, what happens if the house of jointly owned, why someone who owns 5 £1.75m houses escapes, etc.
Delightful skirting around this being the thin end of the wedge that will eventually be used to butt-fk all homeowners down to about £125k(my guess, in line with the lower SDLT threshold). That's the only silver lining in this - those who think it's great now because they think they are well out of it are just in a queue to be fked and don't realise it - well, misery loves company, as the saying goes.
Some indications that there will be relief for asset rich and cash poor. Whoopie do. This just makes it a variety of income tax. Targetted at a subset of earners, and based on an asset that when purchased they had no inkling was going to give rise to a tax charge.
No indications that anyone has thought how this is going to balls up the housing market in this country. None whatsoever.
It's days like this that I remember that income tax was brought in at 2% as a temporary measure to finance a war with someone on the European mainland. Look how well that toothpaste was propelled back into its tube.
It's intended to appeal to the masses and p
s off people who (a) would be unlikely to vote Labour, and (b) don't amount to a big pile of votes anyway. It's to be used to Save The NHS. Right. Annual NHS budget for 2014: £96.5bn. This will raise about £1.2bn. We're saved. Phew.
Other sources to save the NHS: big tobacco (windfall tax) and "tax avoiding hedge funds" (bad, evil bankers). So that's how Labout classifies the owners of valuable homes: on a par with big tobacco and evil bankers. Yeah. That makes sense.
No indications as to how properties will be valued, whether it is the equity or market value that's relevant, what happens if the house of jointly owned, why someone who owns 5 £1.75m houses escapes, etc.
Delightful skirting around this being the thin end of the wedge that will eventually be used to butt-f
k all homeowners down to about £125k(my guess, in line with the lower SDLT threshold). That's the only silver lining in this - those who think it's great now because they think they are well out of it are just in a queue to be fked and don't realise it - well, misery loves company, as the saying goes.Some indications that there will be relief for asset rich and cash poor. Whoopie do. This just makes it a variety of income tax. Targetted at a subset of earners, and based on an asset that when purchased they had no inkling was going to give rise to a tax charge.
No indications that anyone has thought how this is going to balls up the housing market in this country. None whatsoever.
It's days like this that I remember that income tax was brought in at 2% as a temporary measure to finance a war with someone on the European mainland. Look how well that toothpaste was propelled back into its tube.
DonkeyApple said:
Olivera said:
It's a good idea, but I'd rather see it levied on properties over £1m, rather than £2m.
What's wrong with council tax? That's levied on value as opposed to services used.Olivera said:
3. Higher property prices don't help grow the economy (in fact may do so in an opposite manner), so higher taxation in this area is preferred.
But then swapping asset gain for tax increase doesn't grow the economy either. It's the same money but instead of one being paid (beneficially) to the person who owns the asset and funds it, it is instead routed to the State who then spend it.And that is putting to one side the fact that rising property values were the backbone to a 20 year spending boom that grew the economy massively.
Technically, the issue of damaging growth arrives at the point where the asset is inflated to the point that no one new can participate. At that point, what is the benefit to extracting the artificial wealth as tax?
Olivera said:
A multitude of reasons, including:
1. Current council bands stop at 320k and above, meaning those with high value property pay a significantly lower amount (as a percentage of value) than those in low bands.
2. It's taxing large amounts of non-earned income (due to rapid house price inflation), which is fairer and more equitable than taxing labour or other earned income.
3. Higher property prices don't help grow the economy (in fact may do so in an opposite manner), so higher taxation in this area is preferred.
1. Those with high value properties do not use proportionally more public services. Why should they pay more?1. Current council bands stop at 320k and above, meaning those with high value property pay a significantly lower amount (as a percentage of value) than those in low bands.
2. It's taxing large amounts of non-earned income (due to rapid house price inflation), which is fairer and more equitable than taxing labour or other earned income.
3. Higher property prices don't help grow the economy (in fact may do so in an opposite manner), so higher taxation in this area is preferred.
2. An increasing house value is not income.
3. Practically all the current UK economy growth is in property prices.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff