Discussion
Ed Milliband is a sly two faced deceitful toad who set his brother up to fail and took the Labour leadership from him. Nothing is sacrosanct and no one is safe with a b
d like Ed Milliband.
Now he has stabbed his mentor Gordon Brown in the back with equal ferocity once again for political expediency. The tax is completely unworkable but Molliband is not concerned with effective economics just doing anything to get power. I have even less respect for EM than I did for Tony Blair and that was in negative figures already.
d like Ed Milliband.Now he has stabbed his mentor Gordon Brown in the back with equal ferocity once again for political expediency. The tax is completely unworkable but Molliband is not concerned with effective economics just doing anything to get power. I have even less respect for EM than I did for Tony Blair and that was in negative figures already.
No, in the same way that I don't use anymore than someone in band A (in fact considerably less because our road is unadopted and we also pay a maintenance company to provide the services the clowncil should be in addition).
It's just that if I should pay double what someone in band A pays just because my house is newer (all new builds seem to have exorbitant council tax compared to older housing), detached and has 4 not 3 beds, than I'm pretty sure it's only fair that someone in a ten bed, 5000sq ft mansion with pool and quad garage should be paying a fair bit more than I do...at least double.
It's just that if I should pay double what someone in band A pays just because my house is newer (all new builds seem to have exorbitant council tax compared to older housing), detached and has 4 not 3 beds, than I'm pretty sure it's only fair that someone in a ten bed, 5000sq ft mansion with pool and quad garage should be paying a fair bit more than I do...at least double.
Solved it. Everyone should just pay 1% of the value of their home per year. Totally fair. Same for everyone. Not that different to council tax at present for most people in the country e.g £100,000 house, £1000 per year, not that out of sync with band A. £200,000 house £2000 a year, akin to current band D/E. £500000 house, £5000 a year. Seems fair. What's stupid is an arbitrary start point of £2 million.
The more money the house is worth, the bigger the income must be to get the mortgage, so people should be able to afford it. No mortgage, no worries, it's not like they have owt else to pay out.
The more money the house is worth, the bigger the income must be to get the mortgage, so people should be able to afford it. No mortgage, no worries, it's not like they have owt else to pay out.
Lotusevoraboy said:
Solved it. Everyone should just pay 1% of the value of their home per year. Totally fair. Same for everyone. Not that different to council tax at present for most people in the country e.g £100,000 house, £1000 per year, not that out of sync with band A. £200,000 house £2000 a year, akin to current band D/E. £500000 house, £5000 a year. Seems fair. What's stupid is an arbitrary start point of £2 million.
The more money the house is worth, the bigger the income must be to get the mortgage, so people should be able to afford it. No mortgage, no worries, it's not like they have owt else to pay out.
Thats all well and good, but isn't this an additional tax on top of council tax?The more money the house is worth, the bigger the income must be to get the mortgage, so people should be able to afford it. No mortgage, no worries, it's not like they have owt else to pay out.
Lotusevoraboy said:
Solved it. Everyone should just pay 1% of the value of their home per year. Totally fair. Same for everyone. Not that different to council tax at present for most people in the country e.g £100,000 house, £1000 per year, not that out of sync with band A. £200,000 house £2000 a year, akin to current band D/E. £500000 house, £5000 a year. Seems fair. What's stupid is an arbitrary start point of £2 million.
The more money the house is worth, the bigger the income must be to get the mortgage, so people should be able to afford it. No mortgage, no worries, it's not like they have owt else to pay out.
Including those in council houses , BnB's and hotels? The more money the house is worth, the bigger the income must be to get the mortgage, so people should be able to afford it. No mortgage, no worries, it's not like they have owt else to pay out.
Those in council houses do pay council tax you know.
The 1% levy should include/replace council tax, so those in £100,000 houses, paying £1000 would see no increase, nor would those in £200,000 houses really. However, the 'wealthy' in £350,000 plus houses, would see the total they pay increase over and above their current rate, assuming a top rate band H current limit of c£3200 per annum with council tax.
The 1% levy should include/replace council tax, so those in £100,000 houses, paying £1000 would see no increase, nor would those in £200,000 houses really. However, the 'wealthy' in £350,000 plus houses, would see the total they pay increase over and above their current rate, assuming a top rate band H current limit of c£3200 per annum with council tax.
It really is only a problem in London, those 2 places earlier in Putney and Islington I thing are still pretty huge and probably bigger than most of the population can afford, regardless of location. Search for 2 million in Kent / Essex and you find some pretty spectacular properties!
Lotusevoraboy said:
The 1% levy should include/replace council tax, so those in £100,000 houses, paying £1000 would see no increase, nor would those in £200,000 houses really. However, the 'wealthy' in £350,000 plus houses, would see the total they pay increase over and above their current rate, assuming a top rate band H current limit of c£3200 per annum with council tax.
Let's hope you are equally enthusistic about the £20,000 a year sportscar tax on your Evora, the ownership of which is clearly a sign of excessive wealth splashed on a mere plaything, cluttering up the roads and polluting the environment to the detriment of other people. It's not about using council services. If it was I'd pay nothing given on a private road the council does nothing for me. It's about raising revenue from those that it is perceived can afford it. Unfortunately, looking at someone's house has historically been he measure of that from the window tax to the hearth tax to the currrent council tax regime.
A better method would be to stop property taxes and slap it on income tax at source. This would also get us rid of the stupid taxation of the unemployed where millions are spent billing them, then millions spent giving them council tax relief, with all the £s lot in admin in between.
A better method would be to stop property taxes and slap it on income tax at source. This would also get us rid of the stupid taxation of the unemployed where millions are spent billing them, then millions spent giving them council tax relief, with all the £s lot in admin in between.
Theres a slight argument that owning a 15,000 sq foot house could use more services
Large wine cellar - more empty bottles in the bin after all those parties
If it goes up in flames a stately pile takes more fire crew and longer to put out
House full of expensive antiques burglarised will take more police investigation than a DVD player and laptop getting nicked.
But surely this is offset by employing the local peasantry as servants, not using the local library, schools, hospitals, public toilets etc and the subsidising the local councillors with routine bungs for sundry planning applications for helicopter landing pads and dovecotes.
Large wine cellar - more empty bottles in the bin after all those parties
If it goes up in flames a stately pile takes more fire crew and longer to put out
House full of expensive antiques burglarised will take more police investigation than a DVD player and laptop getting nicked.
But surely this is offset by employing the local peasantry as servants, not using the local library, schools, hospitals, public toilets etc and the subsidising the local councillors with routine bungs for sundry planning applications for helicopter landing pads and dovecotes.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Lotusevoraboy said:
The 1% levy should include/replace council tax, so those in £100,000 houses, paying £1000 would see no increase, nor would those in £200,000 houses really. However, the 'wealthy' in £350,000 plus houses, would see the total they pay increase over and above their current rate, assuming a top rate band H current limit of c£3200 per annum with council tax.
Let's hope you are equally enthusistic about the £20,000 a year sportscar tax on your Evora, the ownership of which is clearly a sign of excessive wealth splashed on a mere plaything, cluttering up the roads and polluting the environment to the detriment of other people. If they're going to do anything with the taxation of more valuable houses, maybe they should introduce some extra bands beyond 'H'. There are quite a lot of relatively ordinary houses in the current top band - maybe there should be another four or five bands, culminating in a top band of £10,000,000+
The owner of a ten million pound house is very different from that of the owner of a two million pound house. At £10m, the owner is rich. He or she can afford virtually anything in tax, though whether they will pay, is another matter. Most owners of two million pound houses will only be the sucessful version of an ordinary person and hardly living in a parallel reality. £20k per year will hurt if they have a lot of borrowing. The tax sends a terrible message to strivers.
It also seems particularly unfair on well off retired people who have already seen their investment income plummet from very low interest rates. I for one do not believe I have the right to force someone older than me out of their home simply because I am of breeding age.
The owner of a ten million pound house is very different from that of the owner of a two million pound house. At £10m, the owner is rich. He or she can afford virtually anything in tax, though whether they will pay, is another matter. Most owners of two million pound houses will only be the sucessful version of an ordinary person and hardly living in a parallel reality. £20k per year will hurt if they have a lot of borrowing. The tax sends a terrible message to strivers.
It also seems particularly unfair on well off retired people who have already seen their investment income plummet from very low interest rates. I for one do not believe I have the right to force someone older than me out of their home simply because I am of breeding age.
Lotusevoraboy said:
Now a 1% levy on it's value, about £300 would be OK. In fact, come to think of it, let's call it road tax.
You obviously haven't spotted the rate of tax on fuel for your car, which is over 60%. Better drop the chancellor an email and suggest he drops it to 1%...Or to put it another way you make the classic mistake of thinking only people wealthier than you should be heavily taxed when you are actually "wealthy" yourself.
nyxster said:
Theres a slight argument that owning a 15,000 sq foot house could use more services
Large wine cellar - more empty bottles in the bin after all those parties
If it goes up in flames a stately pile takes more fire crew and longer to put out
House full of expensive antiques burglarised will take more police investigation than a DVD player and laptop getting nicked.
But surely this is offset by employing the local peasantry as servants, not using the local library, schools, hospitals, public toilets etc and the subsidising the local councillors with routine bungs for sundry planning applications for helicopter landing pads and dovecotes.
True, but even here in the North west, you don't get 15,000 sq ft for £2,000,000. More like half that!Large wine cellar - more empty bottles in the bin after all those parties
If it goes up in flames a stately pile takes more fire crew and longer to put out
House full of expensive antiques burglarised will take more police investigation than a DVD player and laptop getting nicked.
But surely this is offset by employing the local peasantry as servants, not using the local library, schools, hospitals, public toilets etc and the subsidising the local councillors with routine bungs for sundry planning applications for helicopter landing pads and dovecotes.
Lotusevoraboy said:
Those in council houses do pay council tax you know.
The 1% levy should include/replace council tax, so those in £100,000 houses, paying £1000 would see no increase, nor would those in £200,000 houses really. However, the 'wealthy' in £350,000 plus houses, would see the total they pay increase over and above their current rate, assuming a top rate band H current limit of c£3200 per annum with council tax.
Explain how you reach the conclusion that those in £350k houses are the 'wealthy' seems a pretty random conclusion to reach The 1% levy should include/replace council tax, so those in £100,000 houses, paying £1000 would see no increase, nor would those in £200,000 houses really. However, the 'wealthy' in £350,000 plus houses, would see the total they pay increase over and above their current rate, assuming a top rate band H current limit of c£3200 per annum with council tax.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Lotusevoraboy said:
Now a 1% levy on it's value, about £300 would be OK. In fact, come to think of it, let's call it road tax.
You obviously haven't spotted the rate of tax on fuel for your car, which is over 60%. Better drop the chancellor an email and suggest he drops it to 1%...Or to put it another way you make the classic mistake of thinking only people wealthier than you should be heavily taxed when you are actually "wealthy" yourself.
Maybe you make the mistake of being wealthy and thinking you should pay less as a % of your total wealth than others. Rich people do not like paying tax and think they should pay the same as the poor.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff