mansion tax

[avinalarf]

The term "mansion tax"is certainly a phrase that will appeal to those on the Left.
It would have been possible and far less divisive to simply introduce more bands of council tax,to reflect the high value properties.
As usual the bulk of those having to pay the tax will fall not only on the extremely wealthy but on those that happen to live in London in quite modest properties that have soared in value over the past 20 years.
Nowadays it is all too easy to coin phrases like " bedroom tax" and "mansion tax" to create envy and discord.

[Mrr T]

An interesting post on just how difficult it will be to implement a mansion tax,

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/09/n...

[PorkInsider]

It is an envy tax, whether some people to choose to believe that or not.

Yes some labour MPs will have to pay it but that doesn't change the fact it's based upon envy. It's the envy of the mouth-breathing, work-shy, 'woe is me' potential labour voters they're trying to appeal to. Isn't that obvious?

The mere notion of taxing people even more, just because they can, makes me utterly sick.

I'm (very) well into the 40% tax bracket and in all honesty don't begrudge what I currently pay, despite being very light on public services (no kids, private health, etc, etc) but I'm fked if I'm going to support anyone having to pay more tax just because they're an easy target for these fkwits.

I currently do very little about being 'tax efficient' but I will, without any doubt whatsoever, avoid every fking single penny of tax I can avoid if these cretins get into power. The last thing these idiots need is even more of other people's money to waste.

[FredClogs]

avinalarf said:

As usual the bulk of those having to pay the tax will fall not only on the extremely wealthy but on those that happen to live in London in quite modest properties that have soared in value over the past 20 years.

You mean their not extremely wealthy, they just luckily stumbled on extreme wealth?

[anonymous-user]

PorkInsider said:

It is an envy tax, whether some people to choose to believe that or not.

Yes some labour MPs will have to pay it but that doesn't change the fact it's based upon envy. It's the envy of the mouth-breathing, work-shy, 'woe is me' potential labour voters they're trying to appeal to. Isn't that obvious?

The mere notion of taxing people even more, just because they can, makes me utterly sick.

I'm (very) well into the 40% tax bracket and in all honesty don't begrudge what I currently pay, despite being very light on public services (no kids, private health, etc, etc) but I'm fked if I'm going to support anyone having to pay more tax just because they're an easy target for these fkwits.

I currently do very little about being 'tax efficient' but I will, without any doubt whatsoever, avoid every fking single penny of tax I can avoid if these cretins get into power. The last thing these idiots need is even more of other people's money to waste.

I'm with you. I have and still do pay too much tax even though, unlike you, I do try to mitigate the burden through avoidance in a number of areas. However, if labour get in, maybe even if the Tories get in but continue to fail to address our welfare system amongst other things, I will do everything that I can to avoid tax in the future.

[DonkeyApple]

avinalarf said:

The term "mansion tax"is certainly a phrase that will appeal to those on the Left.
It would have been possible and far less divisive to simply introduce more bands of council tax,to reflect the high value properties.
As usual the bulk of those having to pay the tax will fall not only on the extremely wealthy but on those that happen to live in London in quite modest properties that have soared in value over the past 20 years.
Nowadays it is all too easy to coin phrases like " bedroom tax" and "mansion tax" to create envy and discord.

It'll also blind those not on the left who live in an alright detached or semi, or flat even who think that this tax is aimed at people in actual mansions with Doric columned porticos and deer in the meadow. They won't have appreciated that their modest family home is actually a mansion.

[Du1point8]

DonkeyApple said:

avinalarf said:

The term "mansion tax"is certainly a phrase that will appeal to those on the Left.
It would have been possible and far less divisive to simply introduce more bands of council tax,to reflect the high value properties.
As usual the bulk of those having to pay the tax will fall not only on the extremely wealthy but on those that happen to live in London in quite modest properties that have soared in value over the past 20 years.
Nowadays it is all too easy to coin phrases like " bedroom tax" and "mansion tax" to create envy and discord.

It'll also blind those not on the left who live in an alright detached or semi, or flat even who think that this tax is aimed at people in actual mansions with Doric columned porticos and deer in the meadow. They won't have appreciated that their modest family home is actually a mansion.

Ah... these mansions:

1 bed
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...


2 beds
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/prop...


I can't be bothered to look for studios.

[gruffalo]

DonkeyApple said:

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?
2. An increasing house value is not income.
3. Practically all the current UK economy growth is in property prices.

1. A 40% taxpayer doesn't use more public services than a 20% taxpayer. Let's not kid ourselves that any tax is paying for proportionally what we use.
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.

Re 2: IHT is for that. Typically, most people selling a home will be buying anther, so just transferring the gain to another non yielding asset. Why would you tax that transfer????

That is already taxed, it is called stamp duty.

[avinalarf]

FredClogs said:

avinalarf said:

As usual the bulk of those having to pay the tax will fall not only on the extremely wealthy but on those that happen to live in London in quite modest properties that have soared in value over the past 20 years.

You mean their not extremely wealthy, they just luckily stumbled on extreme wealth?

I note a touch of cynicism Fred.
The answer is probably yes.
There are many areas in East London,where 20/30 years ago you would have had to pay people to live there,where a 4bed house might cost £2 million +.
I am not referring to the extremely wealthy,many of those are foreigners that have either purchased "trophy homes"or sought a safe haven for part of their fortunes.

[ellroy]

There's also the tax creep that inevitably comes with these pernicious taxes.

IHT? Just for those obscenely wealthy landed estate types you, Jo Public, won't ever have to worry about it.

What you mean the average house is now £240k and the allowance is only a little higher at £325k?

Ah, well your a rich landed gentry type. I know you worked hard, paid tax on your income, and your investments, and on what you spent, but now we want some more. Pay up.

It's £2m today, you can put money on it that this generous 'allowance' will either be reduced or left static so fiscal drag can sort it in a generation.

I'll never likely own a £2m house, but this is another envy tax, politically motivated and with little to recommend it from anyone's perspective who isn't a benefits sponger.

[LeighW]

Du1point8 said:

So what you are saying that all people who happened to buy at the right time and work their ass off now need to pay more money? They already pay a lot more in taxes (both normal and stealth) than a lot of the people in the UK, but that is not enough for you and you want more.

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...

Well said.

[Rovinghawk]

ellroy said:

a benefits sponger.

The term you are looking for is "less fortunate, yet no less-valued member of society, who deserves to be treated equitably with his fellow man".

[avinalarf]

Du1point8 said:

Ah... these mansions:

1 bed
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...


2 beds
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/prop...


I can't be bothered to look for studios.

Feckin crazy !

[turbobloke]

Rovinghawk said:

ellroy said:

a benefits sponger.

The term you are looking for is "less fortunate, yet no less-valued member of society, who deserves to be treated equitably with his fellow man".

Whatever happened to "victim of society" ?!

[Rovinghawk]

turbobloke said:

Whatever happened to "victim of society" ?!

Insufficiently eloquent, my good man.

[turbobloke]

avinalarf said:

Du1point8 said:

Ah... these mansions:

1 bed
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...


2 beds
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/prop...


I can't be bothered to look for studios.

Feckin crazy !

Feckin mansions ! Just ask Red Ed and Da Boyz.

[turbobloke]

Rovinghawk said:

turbobloke said:

Whatever happened to "victim of society" ?!

Insufficiently eloquent, my good man.

And yet succinct, kind sir.

[anonymous-user]

Olivera said:

1. A 40% taxpayer doesn't use more public services than a 20% taxpayer. Let's not kid ourselves that any tax is paying for proportionally what we use.
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.

In what way exactly have I non-earned wealth in the house that I built in place of the run down bungalow riddled with asbestos and a 'garden' full of shambolic pig sheds with asbestos roofs and the odd rusted car or 2.

Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxed income spent, plus many hours of time to create a house that you want to label as 'non-earned wealth' - tt

Can we just rename this type of st as the envy/success tax

[Rovinghawk]

Olivera said:

1. A 40% taxpayer doesn't use more public services than a 20% taxpayer. Let's not kid ourselves that any tax is paying for proportionally what we use.

So why should he pay more, other than the fact the fact that he has a more expensive property (ie it's an envy tax)?

[turbobloke]

Rovinghawk said:

Olivera said:

1. A 40% taxpayer doesn't use more public services than a 20% taxpayer. Let's not kid ourselves that any tax is paying for proportionally what we use.

So why should he pay more, other than the fact the fact that he has a more expensive property (ie it's an envy tax)?

A very good question.

If the mansion tax isn't rational in terms of being linked to something as reasonable as use of services, why not levy a massive one-off and fkoff yacht tax on Abramovich, plus another for being the owner of Chelsea, or indeed a one-off FA Football Club tax on all owners. Then there's money that could be grabbed from a helicopter or private jet tax. These taxes should appease Labour's rump as they can be as big as Ed likes given that they need not relate to the value of the yacht or football club or aircraft. After all, rationality is absent and envyist money grabbing is prevalent.