Can we talk about March 2016 Budget
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
Andy Zarse said:
So taxing the gain would solve this problem how exactly?
It would stop the gulf augmenting Sorry old chap, you often make some good points, but more often than not you just seem to write the first words which pop into your head without any consideration as to what they mean. I sometimes even read your posts aloud in a Welsh accent in an effort to decipher your mangled syntax, usually without much luck!
Edited by Andy Zarse on Tuesday 9th February 10:19
oyster said:
It's time for a tax on net worth rather than just on income.
As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
Great idea! Let's tax the nuts off savers and reward feckless squanderers!As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
Hurray!
Property prices have tended to favour those who were cavalier with taking on big mortgages and at least some what lucky in not losing their job or anything along the way. I guess that's what oyster means?
Trouble with that is that many people are far richer in property that cash, so your 0.5% net wortg tax would clobber someone living in an expensive house which they had paid for over decades. A million pound house in London doesn't mean its occupants wouldn't miss £5000 a year.
What it would encourage is exactly the opposite of what I imagine you want to achieve, in so far as the sensible thing to do then would be take on a load more debt and so reduce your net worth.
Trouble with that is that many people are far richer in property that cash, so your 0.5% net wortg tax would clobber someone living in an expensive house which they had paid for over decades. A million pound house in London doesn't mean its occupants wouldn't miss £5000 a year.
What it would encourage is exactly the opposite of what I imagine you want to achieve, in so far as the sensible thing to do then would be take on a load more debt and so reduce your net worth.
Welshbeef said:
But at the moment this is the result if you have a 4 bed detached up North or Wales and then your job moves to the SE you will simply not be able to buy a like for like house not even close / take a few steps down the ladder.
Why is that fair? Your creating a split society those who have and those who don't. It's wrong.
Personally I've benefitted massively due to this but none the less it's not right.
Because it's not just a different post code. The job market, weather, cost of living, lifestyle, etc. is all different.Why is that fair? Your creating a split society those who have and those who don't. It's wrong.
Personally I've benefitted massively due to this but none the less it's not right.
Taxing someone more because their house is in London vs a Scottish isle isn't right either. Some might even argue it's those who get the fresh air and cheap housing stock that should be taxed more.
crankedup said:
oyster said:
GT03ROB said:
oyster said:
It's time for a tax on net worth rather than just on income.
As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
Probably not raise much but end up penalizing the prudent who look after themselves. As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
I've got a better idea put VAT on interest for all borrowing except mortgages on primary residences.
The people who've benefitted most from the housing boom are those who've taken the highest risks.
Those who've maxed out their mortgage to the very highest level and bought the absolutely highest-priced house they could barely afford have seen the largest gains. Prudent types wouldn't have stretched so far and would have seen smaller gains.
Justayellowbadge said:
oyster said:
It's time for a tax on net worth rather than just on income.
As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
Unless you are excluding a bunch of things, your numbers are way out. As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
Household wealth of 100k, which would equate to your £500pa figure, starts a little above the 30th percentile of the population. So nearly 70% would pay at least £500.
oyster said:
It's time for a tax on net worth rather than just on income.
As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
This is an absolutely terrible idea. So I've saved up for years and worked by bAs a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
ks off, paid a st load of tax along the way and saved up to buy a house whilst all the time being rewarded with utterly ste rates in savings accounts and ISA's and now I'm the one who should be hit by a wealth tax?? Why was that your idea again? What was your trigger for this ridiculous premise? Because we are £1.5trn in DEBT. So your way of tackling the debt of the nation is to attack those who SAVED?? Not those who borrowed recklessly and are the ones who CAUSED the debt? I wasn't taking out 105% mortgages in Newcastle from Northern Rock so WHY THE f
k should I be hit with a wealth tax to bail out the feckless, reckless and fraudulent.I promise you if this sort of tax ever came around I would offshore my money faster than you can say where did all the rich people go?
Have a look at France for chasing the rich and see how they have "prospered" since. Housing in expensive suburbs or Paris are off 25% from the high and yet their unemployment rose to record highs.
gibbon said:
Welshbeef said:
Remove the 0% Capital Gains tax on principle primary residence - why is it free it's a massive driver of house price inflation.
Long term I think that could cost revenue rather than generate more, it would cripple the housing market, why should you have to pay tax to move from a like to like property if you want to change geographical location for example? Crazy idea. Industry, work, education, development and progress all require a free movement of a work force, this would kill that.Not really sure why the 'raise more' should be such a strong feature when tbere's 'spend less' available. Central govermnent as per the NHS and local Councils must lose a tidy sum to fraud, waste and error but addressing this hardly gets a mention, probably because it's an admission of failure and it's easier to appropriate other people's money by milking enterprise, measured risk-taking, and hard work.
No benefits, citizens' income, flat rate tax for income/businesses/vat etc.
Sorted, forever, only needing to vary the tax rate slightly from time to time.
No more complex tax and benefits systems, billions saved. Everyone knows where they stand, if you want more you have to earn it/make it in business.
No politician has the balls, sadly.
Sorted, forever, only needing to vary the tax rate slightly from time to time.
No more complex tax and benefits systems, billions saved. Everyone knows where they stand, if you want more you have to earn it/make it in business.
No politician has the balls, sadly.
oyster said:
Justayellowbadge said:
oyster said:
It's time for a tax on net worth rather than just on income.
As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
Unless you are excluding a bunch of things, your numbers are way out. As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
Household wealth of 100k, which would equate to your £500pa figure, starts a little above the 30th percentile of the population. So nearly 70% would pay at least £500.
London424 said:
oyster said:
Justayellowbadge said:
oyster said:
It's time for a tax on net worth rather than just on income.
As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
Unless you are excluding a bunch of things, your numbers are way out. As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
Household wealth of 100k, which would equate to your £500pa figure, starts a little above the 30th percentile of the population. So nearly 70% would pay at least £500.
R11ysf said:
oyster said:
It's time for a tax on net worth rather than just on income.
As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
This is an absolutely terrible idea. So I've saved up for years and worked by bAs a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
ks off, paid a st load of tax along the way and saved up to buy a house whilst all the time being rewarded with utterly ste rates in savings accounts and ISA's and now I'm the one who should be hit by a wealth tax?? Why was that your idea again? What was your trigger for this ridiculous premise? Because we are £1.5trn in DEBT. So your way of tackling the debt of the nation is to attack those who SAVED?? Not those who borrowed recklessly and are the ones who CAUSED the debt? I wasn't taking out 105% mortgages in Newcastle from Northern Rock so WHY THE f
k should I be hit with a wealth tax to bail out the feckless, reckless and fraudulent.I promise you if this sort of tax ever came around I would offshore my money faster than you can say where did all the rich people go?
Have a look at France for chasing the rich and see how they have "prospered" since. Housing in expensive suburbs or Paris are off 25% from the high and yet their unemployment rose to record highs.
Or the taxes on "luxury" cars and boats in Italy in 2013. Results: net loss in terms of tax intake of about 150m €, loads of cheap lhd cars in the UK and all Italian boats in Croatian or French ports. And of course more crisis for dealerships, shipyards etc....
The only solution is cutting costs. End of it.
R11ysf said:
oyster said:
It's time for a tax on net worth rather than just on income.
As a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
This is an absolutely terrible idea. So I've saved up for years and worked by bAs a nation we're £1.5trn in debt yet many times that amount is tied up in wealth of varying types.
An annual 0.5% charge on net wealth would raise billions and yet still be affordable (for 99% of the country they'd pay less than £500 a year).
Would also have the added benefit of releasing some of the £trillions squirreled away by the baby boomers.
ks off, paid a st load of tax along the way and saved up to buy a house whilst all the time being rewarded with utterly ste rates in savings accounts and ISA's and now I'm the one who should be hit by a wealth tax?? Why was that your idea again? What was your trigger for this ridiculous premise? Because we are £1.5trn in DEBT. So your way of tackling the debt of the nation is to attack those who SAVED?? Not those who borrowed recklessly and are the ones who CAUSED the debt? I wasn't taking out 105% mortgages in Newcastle from Northern Rock so WHY THE f
k should I be hit with a wealth tax to bail out the feckless, reckless and fraudulent.I promise you if this sort of tax ever came around I would offshore my money faster than you can say where did all the rich people go?
Have a look at France for chasing the rich and see how they have "prospered" since. Housing in expensive suburbs or Paris are off 25% from the high and yet their unemployment rose to record highs.
There has been talk of a 3% stamp duty tax based around 2nd homes. We're about to move house in the UK, one primary residence to another. We own a small cottage in France, which costs less than a 1 bed flat in Reading. We don't rent it out (we used to), it's our bolt hole. In fact we're selling it (market moves VERY slowly in France).
Our solicitor has had to rush the chain along to exchange and complete before the end of March so that we are not on the hook for £16,000 of stamp duty. The current noise is that we won't have to pay - it will be based on second homes, but as nothing has been written down we just don't know.
Our solicitor has had to rush the chain along to exchange and complete before the end of March so that we are not on the hook for £16,000 of stamp duty. The current noise is that we won't have to pay - it will be based on second homes, but as nothing has been written down we just don't know.
How about a mortgage tax?! Stops people that just borrow lots of money rather than those that have saved.
The issue now is that the ONLY way to make money is to buy a big home on a cheap mortgage and let the tax free increase in value pay for your retirement when you downsize.
There is no tax at all.
Pensions - taxed, even Isas taxed and income taxed and btl property taxed.
At present we are just forcing up the value of main residences as there is nothing else to put money into.
If property just plateaud or fell a bit this would be good news because, over time, people would stop seeing property as an investment and would spend money on savings, pensions, and spend it which would help the economy, renters wouldn't feel as put out - the only reason most want to buy is to make 'free money'
The issue now is that the ONLY way to make money is to buy a big home on a cheap mortgage and let the tax free increase in value pay for your retirement when you downsize.
There is no tax at all.
Pensions - taxed, even Isas taxed and income taxed and btl property taxed.
At present we are just forcing up the value of main residences as there is nothing else to put money into.
If property just plateaud or fell a bit this would be good news because, over time, people would stop seeing property as an investment and would spend money on savings, pensions, and spend it which would help the economy, renters wouldn't feel as put out - the only reason most want to buy is to make 'free money'
AJS- said:
Property prices have tended to favour those who were cavalier with taking on big mortgages and at least some what lucky in not losing their job or anything along the way. I guess that's what oyster means?
Trouble with that is that many people are far richer in property that cash, so your 0.5% net wortg tax would clobber someone living in an expensive house which they had paid for over decades. A million pound house in London doesn't mean its occupants wouldn't miss £5000 a year.
What it would encourage is exactly the opposite of what I imagine you want to achieve, in so far as the sensible thing to do then would be take on a load more debt and so reduce your net worth.
Roll the tax up against the value of the house and deduct tax on death or when sold.Trouble with that is that many people are far richer in property that cash, so your 0.5% net wortg tax would clobber someone living in an expensive house which they had paid for over decades. A million pound house in London doesn't mean its occupants wouldn't miss £5000 a year.
What it would encourage is exactly the opposite of what I imagine you want to achieve, in so far as the sensible thing to do then would be take on a load more debt and so reduce your net worth.
jonah35 said:
How about a mortgage tax?! Stops people that just borrow lots of money rather than those that have saved.
The issue now is that the ONLY way to make money is to buy a big home on a cheap mortgage and let the tax free increase in value pay for your retirement when you downsize.
There is no tax at all.
Pensions - taxed, even Isas taxed and income taxed and btl property taxed.
At present we are just forcing up the value of main residences as there is nothing else to put money into.
If property just plateaud or fell a bit this would be good news because, over time, people would stop seeing property as an investment and would spend money on savings, pensions, and spend it which would help the economy, renters wouldn't feel as put out - the only reason most want to buy is to make 'free money'
You've paid tax on the money with which you pay the mortgage and stamp duty when you bought it. Isn't that enough?.The issue now is that the ONLY way to make money is to buy a big home on a cheap mortgage and let the tax free increase in value pay for your retirement when you downsize.
There is no tax at all.
Pensions - taxed, even Isas taxed and income taxed and btl property taxed.
At present we are just forcing up the value of main residences as there is nothing else to put money into.
If property just plateaud or fell a bit this would be good news because, over time, people would stop seeing property as an investment and would spend money on savings, pensions, and spend it which would help the economy, renters wouldn't feel as put out - the only reason most want to buy is to make 'free money'
Edited by rovermorris999 on Tuesday 9th February 11:47
jonah35 said:
Roll the tax up against the value of the house and deduct tax on death or when sold.
Isn't that the idea of death duties? Which were just raised because they were hammering the prudent middle classes. I think we're pretty much at the top of the Laffer curve where any increase in rates leads to a decrease in revenue.
I think the property market could be done a lot better, but through planning laws, not the budget.
For that we need more tax payers and more growth.
jonah35 said:
AJS- said:
Property prices have tended to favour those who were cavalier with taking on big mortgages and at least some what lucky in not losing their job or anything along the way. I guess that's what oyster means?
Trouble with that is that many people are far richer in property that cash, so your 0.5% net wortg tax would clobber someone living in an expensive house which they had paid for over decades. A million pound house in London doesn't mean its occupants wouldn't miss £5000 a year.
What it would encourage is exactly the opposite of what I imagine you want to achieve, in so far as the sensible thing to do then would be take on a load more debt and so reduce your net worth.
Roll the tax up against the value of the house and deduct tax on death or when sold.Trouble with that is that many people are far richer in property that cash, so your 0.5% net wortg tax would clobber someone living in an expensive house which they had paid for over decades. A million pound house in London doesn't mean its occupants wouldn't miss £5000 a year.
What it would encourage is exactly the opposite of what I imagine you want to achieve, in so far as the sensible thing to do then would be take on a load more debt and so reduce your net worth.
Puggit said:
There has been talk of a 3% stamp duty tax based around 2nd homes. We're about to move house in the UK, one primary residence to another. We own a small cottage in France, which costs less than a 1 bed flat in Reading. We don't rent it out (we used to), it's our bolt hole. In fact we're selling it (market moves VERY slowly in France).
Our solicitor has had to rush the chain along to exchange and complete before the end of March so that we are not on the hook for £16,000 of stamp duty. The current noise is that we won't have to pay - it will be based on second homes, but as nothing has been written down we just don't know.
Not sure how they can trace overseas property though.....Our solicitor has had to rush the chain along to exchange and complete before the end of March so that we are not on the hook for £16,000 of stamp duty. The current noise is that we won't have to pay - it will be based on second homes, but as nothing has been written down we just don't know.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff