Discussion
Alex said:
2. An increasing house value is not income.
Quite. If these idiots really thought properly about how to extract money from homes, the way to go is to remove the CGT exemption for principal private residences. Which Labour hasn't the balls for (rightly so) as it's suicide.
I'd love to see Cameron counter this with a pledge to increase the 40% income tax threshold significantly to reverse years of fiscal drag, but I really doubt he has the money available to do so. It would put a very, very large swathe of clear blue water between the parties fiscally, and more importantly idealogically.
SilverSixer said:
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.
Alex said:
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.
2. I should of course have referred to taxing non-earned wealth. My point still stands that non-earned wealth should be taxed in some manner, either via increased council/mansion tax or no CGT exemption in main property.
3. If that's true then it's a bad thing, as the same investment elsewhere in the economy would improve growth.
Du1point8 said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
A so-called mansion tax is aimed at placating and then enthusing those who think it's a great idea to take money off other people and either waste it or hand it to others, which often amounts to the same thing.
Greg66 said:
I'd love to see Cameron counter this with a pledge to increase the 40% income tax threshold significantly to reverse years of fiscal drag, but I really doubt he has the money available to do so. It would put a very, very large swathe of clear blue water between the parties fiscally, and more importantly idealogically.
Olivera said:
Alex said:
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.
2. I should of course have referred to taxing non-earned wealth. My point still stands that non-earned wealth should be taxed in some manner, either via increased council/mansion tax or no CGT exemption in main property.
3. If that's true then it's a bad thing, as the same investment elsewhere in the economy would improve growth.
Du1point8 said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
What qualifies as envy tax? Where is the boundary between justifiable tax and envy tax? It really is a silly concept and doesn't help the argument.
Drop the envy card and debate the real issues.
Just to add, it's my belief (as stated) that we need to tackle un-earned wealth via some additional means (increased council mansion/tax or removal of primary residence CGT exemption), but simultaneously we need to reduce taxes on labour, starting with abolition of 45p rate, and preferably reduction of 40p rate down to 35 or even 30p.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Away from CMD and to be fair to Miliband et al since when has Labour been about doing things for the good of the country - during their last stint bringing the country to its knees they increased poverty and widened wealth gaps while reducing social mobility. It's about getting power using gutter tactics around the lowest common denominators of dependency and envy, then sticking it to the 'poshos' while not really giving a feck if the relatively poor get a raw deal. After all if the less well-off were actually helped to become better off they may well not vote Labour when they see their hard-earned being taken away. Labour needs to work hard at preserving its rump, champagne socialists won't be enough to get Balls' balls parked on a HM Treasury chair.Olivera said:
Just to add, it's my belief (as stated) that we need to tackle un-earned wealth via some additional means (increased council mansion/tax or removal of primary residence CGT exemption), but simultaneously we need to reduce taxes on labour, starting with abolition of 45p rate, and preferably reduction of 40p rate down to 35 or even 30p.
OK. Serious question on taxing "unearned wealth". You have a portfolio of wine, or shares, or jewellery, or cars, or BTL properties, whatever.
On paper the portfolio increases over a year in value by 20%. Do you think that should be taxed? Surely that is what CGT is for (which brings me back to my point that mansion tax is a very clumsy way of attacking the CGT exemption on principal private residences, an abolition which I would not care for one bit, but which I would find more palatable than paying an annual tax with money I don't have).
And what do you do about the house valued for mansion tax purposes at £2.1m, but which would never actually sell above £2m for precisely that reason?
Greg66 said:
Olivera said:
Just to add, it's my belief (as stated) that we need to tackle un-earned wealth via some additional means (increased council mansion/tax or removal of primary residence CGT exemption), but simultaneously we need to reduce taxes on labour, starting with abolition of 45p rate, and preferably reduction of 40p rate down to 35 or even 30p.
OK. Serious question on taxing "unearned wealth". You have a portfolio of wine, or shares, or jewellery, or cars, or BTL properties, whatever.
On paper the portfolio increases over a year in value by 20%. Do you think that should be taxed? Surely that is what CGT is for (which brings me back to my point that mansion tax is a very clumsy way of attacking the CGT exemption on principal private residences, an abolition which I would not care for one bit, but which I would find more palatable than paying an annual tax with money I don't have).
And what do you do about the house valued for mansion tax purposes at £2.1m, but which would never actually sell above £2m for precisely that reason?
SilverSixer said:
Du1point8 said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
What qualifies as envy tax? Where is the boundary between justifiable tax and envy tax? It really is a silly concept and doesn't help the argument.
Drop the envy card and debate the real issues.
But to the electorate, it is purely a punitive envy tax aimed at stirring up hatred... "look at them posh
s sitting in their two million pound mansion (house actually)... they should be on the street instead" etc. etc. that's the sort of pish you normally hear from a plethora of left wing mouthbreathers, it's lowest common denominator politics, appealing to the the kind of people who'd see a nice car on the street that's been keyed, and think "serves him right for having a nice car".I've yet to mention to my left wing comrades I know, I'll just wait for it to appear of it's own accord, if I mention it myself my head will probably burst from the resulting tirade about tories/thatcher/etc. at least if I wait till they mention it I have a little more time before I get annoyed by their viewpoint.
KingNothing said:
SilverSixer said:
Du1point8 said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
What qualifies as envy tax? Where is the boundary between justifiable tax and envy tax? It really is a silly concept and doesn't help the argument.
Drop the envy card and debate the real issues.
But to the electorate, it is purely a punitive envy tax aimed at stirring up hatred... "look at them posh
s sitting in their two million pound mansion (house actually)... they should be on the street instead" etc. etc. that's the sort of pish you normally hear from a plethora of left wing mouthbreathers, it's lowest common denominator politics, appealing to the the kind of people who'd see a nice car on the street that's been keyed, and think "serves him right for having a nice car".I've yet to mention to my left wing comrades I know, I'll just wait for it to appear of it's own accord, if I mention it myself my head will probably burst from the resulting tirade about tories/thatcher/etc. at least if I wait till they mention it I have a little more time before I get annoyed by their viewpoint.
SilverSixer said:
Du1point8 said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
What qualifies as envy tax? Where is the boundary between justifiable tax and envy tax? It really is a silly concept and doesn't help the argument.
Drop the envy card and debate the real issues.
Presumably its because they can afford it and won't notice it if they live in a property like that.
Sounds like an envy tax... looks like an envy tax... pretty certain it is one.
If its not an envy tax, what do you call a tax that is only going to affect a small percentage of the population that got there due to hard work and ambition?
Real issues they should look at instead:
Child benefits to 2 kids only.
Make non UK citizens pay upfront for health care.
Cut down the immigration.
Do not give out UK benefits to immigrants at UK rates, give them the rate they would get at home only...
Stop wasting the taxes already collected.
Get the slackers that don't want to work because they can milk the system out in the real world and working.
Don't instead keep taxing those hard workers with extra envy taxes to pay for the above simply because you can't sort out the books on welfare, etc...
Olivera said:
Just to add, it's my belief (as stated) that we need to tackle un-earned wealth via some additional means (increased council mansion/tax or removal of primary residence CGT exemption), but simultaneously we need to reduce taxes on labour, starting with abolition of 45p rate, and preferably reduction of 40p rate down to 35 or even 30p.
Agreed !Taxing earnings (normally from productive activity) seems silly, whilst not taxing unproductive capital seems wrong.
If you own a £2m plus house and don't want to pay the tax, sell it and rent it, put the money to good use, in a bank (and support the wheels of capital turn round)
Strangely I find the idea of taxing earnings as more socialist than taxing locked up capital.
Du1point8 said:
SilverSixer said:
Du1point8 said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
What qualifies as envy tax? Where is the boundary between justifiable tax and envy tax? It really is a silly concept and doesn't help the argument.
Drop the envy card and debate the real issues.
Presumably its because they can afford it and won't notice it if they live in a property like that.
Sounds like an envy tax... looks like an envy tax... pretty certain it is one.
If its not an envy tax, what do you call a tax that is only going to affect a small percentage of the population that got there due to hard work and ambition?
Real issues they should look at instead:
Child benefits to 2 kids only.
Make non UK citizens pay upfront for health care.
Cut down the immigration.
Do not give out UK benefits to immigrants at UK rates, give them the rate they would get at home only...
Stop wasting the taxes already collected.
Get the slackers that don't want to work because they can milk the system out in the real world and working.
Don't instead keep taxing those hard workers with extra envy taxes to pay for the above simply because you can't sort out the books on welfare, etc...
Du1point8 said:
SilverSixer said:
Du1point8 said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
What qualifies as envy tax? Where is the boundary between justifiable tax and envy tax? It really is a silly concept and doesn't help the argument.
Drop the envy card and debate the real issues.
Presumably its because they can afford it and won't notice it if they live in a property like that.
Sounds like an envy tax... looks like an envy tax... pretty certain it is one.
If its not an envy tax, what do you call a tax that is only going to affect a small percentage of the population that got there due to hard work and ambition?
Real issues they should look at instead:
Child benefits to 2 kids only.
Make non UK citizens pay upfront for health care.
Cut down the immigration.
Do not give out UK benefits to immigrants at UK rates, give them the rate they would get at home only...
Stop wasting the taxes already collected.
Get the slackers that don't want to work because they can milk the system out in the real world and working.
Don't instead keep taxing those hard workers with extra envy taxes to pay for the above simply because you can't sort out the books on welfare, etc...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff