How many rooms does George Monbiot have?

[NoelWatson]

ShadownINja said:

thinfourth2 said:

And i bet the wee lefty little st flys way more then is do

Do as i say not as i do

Yes, I'm hearing a lot of this. Al "Earth Killer" Gore seems to have racked up a few airmiles, not to mention attempted to turn his wife's vagina into a clown car.

Edited by ShadownINja on Tuesday 4th January 11:58

Thought he had 4 kids??

[sidicks]

12gauge said:

Though i agree with the principle that some homes are too lightly taxed. It seems insane that the top council tax bracket can apply to homes worth a little as £500k, to as much as £50million. A few more brackets at the top end would be no bad thing. As a percentage of the homes value, council tax is very regressive. If it was fixed at 0.5% of a houses value, homeowners of less valuable houses would pay a lot less, homeowners of expensive ones would pay more. And thats just a flat tax, not even a progressive one.

Why should a tax on home be progressive?

As an example, if I have a large house, then either it was given to me by my parents which they paid for out of taxed income (which was then subject to inheritance tax) OR I bought it myself.

In the latter scenario then I either bought it using income which has already been taxed or I have a large mortgage which I still have to pay.

Either way the value of my house is neither a fair assessment of affordability to pay higher council tax nor is it a fair way to allocate the cost of local services.

Sidicks

[FourWheelDrift]

fido said:

How many rooms does George Monbiot have?

Quite a few if he lives here, click left once. - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&a...

At least that is the address he gives, ignore the guesthouse ref on the map I think Google has tagged the wrong building (as always) the guest house is a different house altogether if you follow it's link to it's website.

And I have no problems posting his house on the interweb as he had no problem invading other peoples property when his little gang of urban terrorists invaded Surrey a few years back - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_is_Ours

[12gauge]

ShadownINja said:

We already pay a tax based on its value when we buy a house...

Whats your point?

If i choose not to be a homeowner and store my wealth somewhere else (stocks, savings) I pay either income tax on the savings (20 or 40%), or CGT. When you come to sell your house, you pay no such tax.

For those that dont agree with private homeownership, or want to be homeowners, its a tax break that they are not entitled to. Fairest solution would be to get rid of taxes on one asset class for non-homeowners, or else put CGT on all houses.

[ShadownINja]

NoelWatson said:

ShadownINja said:

thinfourth2 said:

And i bet the wee lefty little st flys way more then is do

Do as i say not as i do

Yes, I'm hearing a lot of this. Al "Earth Killer" Gore seems to have racked up a few airmiles, not to mention attempted to turn his wife's vagina into a clown car.

Edited by ShadownINja on Tuesday 4th January 11:58

Thought he had 4 kids??

Yes. "Attempted." If you're going to go around preaching how we should save the planet, you want to have at least three kids less than four to prove a point about your beliefs.

[grumbledoak]

He really is a repugnant, smug, little hypocrite, isn't he.

He should be politely asked to shut up. Preferably by writing "please shut up" on some sort of bat Polly Toynbee and hitting him with it until he complies.

[ShadownINja]

12gauge said:

ShadownINja said:

We already pay a tax based on its value when we buy a house...

Whats your point?

If i choose not to be a homeowner and store my wealth somewhere else (stocks, savings) I pay either income tax on the savings (20 or 40%), or CGT. When you come to sell your house, you pay no such tax.

I don't think you can compare a home (somewhere to live) with a piece of paper stating you own part of a company.

My point is that you already pay a tax when you buy a home. Why should someone have to pay another tax if it cost £50m when he would have already paid to buy it. Actually, not why. They shouldn't. A £50m home doesn't take up more services if one person lives in a 20 bedroom mansion. It certainly doesn't only cost the council 25% less than a family of 6. (I paid 25% less than the 6 person family next door; how can I only use 25% less council services than 6 people?)

[12gauge]

sidicks said:

12gauge said:

Though i agree with the principle that some homes are too lightly taxed. It seems insane that the top council tax bracket can apply to homes worth a little as £500k, to as much as £50million. A few more brackets at the top end would be no bad thing. As a percentage of the homes value, council tax is very regressive. If it was fixed at 0.5% of a houses value, homeowners of less valuable houses would pay a lot less, homeowners of expensive ones would pay more. And thats just a flat tax, not even a progressive one.

Why should a tax on home be progressive?

As an example, if I have a large house, then either it was given to me by my parents which they paid for out of taxed income (which was then subject to inheritance tax) OR I bought it myself.

In the latter scenario then I either bought it using income which has already been taxed or I have a large mortgage which I still have to pay.

Either way the value of my house is neither a fair assessment of affordability to pay higher council tax nor is it a fair way to allocate the cost of local services.

Sidicks

Its an asset in your name, while not a perfect measure of your ability to pay council tax, its as good as any. You can liquidate it or raise additional finance against it to pay that tax.

If you cant afford insurance and tax on a supercar you dont just claim that you shouldnt have to pay, do you? You downsize to something you can afford.

In your latter scenario, why would you take on a mortgage on a property you knowingly couldnt afford to maintain, regardless of whether council tax is at current levels or higher levels (and given YoY increases of 20%+ arent unheard of anyway, claiming ignorance isnt really a plausible excuse)

Obviously in a perfect world, tax wouldnt exist, but that isnt the world we live in.

[ShadownINja]

12gauge said:

If you cant afford insurance and tax on a supercar you dont just claim that you shouldnt have to pay, do you? You downsize to something you can afford.

Your analogy fails again. You could buy a supercar and leave it in your garage unused, thus not needing to pay insurance or road tax.

[12gauge]

ShadownINja said:

12gauge said:

ShadownINja said:

We already pay a tax based on its value when we buy a house...

Whats your point?

If i choose not to be a homeowner and store my wealth somewhere else (stocks, savings) I pay either income tax on the savings (20 or 40%), or CGT. When you come to sell your house, you pay no such tax.

I don't think you can compare a home (somewhere to live) with a piece of paper stating you own part of a company.

Why not?

If i have my life savings in cash or stocks, why shouldnt i get the same tax benefits that a homeowner, whose life savings are his house, would?

Your views seems to suggest anyone that doesnt own a home should be treated as a second class citizen.

[Mr E]

grumbledoak said:

He really is a repugnant, smug, little hypocrite, isn't he.

But we knew that.

Of course, I'm sure he's a champion of working from home for environmental reasons.

That's one of my bedrooms gone. Possibly two.

[Dr Jekyll]

12gauge said:

ShadownINja said:

We already pay a tax based on its value when we buy a house...

Whats your point?

If i choose not to be a homeowner and store my wealth somewhere else (stocks, savings) I pay either income tax on the savings (20 or 40%), or CGT. When you come to sell your house, you pay no such tax.

No, you don't. Yuo only pay income tax on the income you receive from those stocks and savings. You are suggesting an (additional) tax on simply owning a house.

[ShadownINja]

12gauge said:

Your views seems to suggest anyone that doesnt own a home should be treated as a second class citizen.

I can't argue with you because your logical deduction is daft.

[12gauge]

ShadownINja said:

12gauge said:

If you cant afford insurance and tax on a supercar you dont just claim that you shouldnt have to pay, do you? You downsize to something you can afford.

Your analogy fails again. You could buy a supercar and leave it in your garage unused, thus not needing to pay insurance or road tax.

And if someone steals it from your garage?

Regardless, im not trying like for like comparisons here, im trying to prove a very simple point you seem unable to get to grips with.

Why would you buy an asset, that once all possible costs of that asset are counted, you might not be able to afford. If you cant afford the council tax on a larger home, sell it.

[sidicks]

12gauge said:

Its an asset in your name, while not a perfect measure of your ability to pay council tax, its as good as any. You can liquidate it or raise additional finance against it to pay that tax.

This is not a discussion about whether you should pay council tax or not, it is an argument about what is fair.

12gauge said:

If you cant afford insurance and tax on a supercar you dont just claim that you shouldnt have to pay, do you? You downsize to something you can afford.

Irrelevant.

When you buy a new house you incure more stamp duty!
If everyone downsized then prizes would go up, people would complain about being forecd out of the market, and the tax take would be lower, so council tax would need to rise.........

12gauge said:

In your latter scenario, why would you take on a mortgage on a property you knowingly couldnt afford to maintain, regardless of whether council tax is at current levels or higher levels (and given YoY increases of 20%+ arent unheard of anyway, claiming ignorance isnt really a plausible excuse)

Nobody said anything about being able to afford it. My argument is that living in a large house is not a good guide to how affordable council tax is.

This seems to be another 'polictics of envy' discussion from you..

Sidicks

[12gauge]

ShadownINja said:

12gauge said:

Your views seems to suggest anyone that doesnt own a home should be treated as a second class citizen.

I can't argue with you because your logical deduction is daft.

Well, thats a cop out.

[Pesty]

Is monbiot the newspaper writers version of a Troll?

he only ever writes 'controversial' bkss and seems to do it for the sake of it.

[ShadownINja]

12gauge said:

ShadownINja said:

12gauge said:

Your views seems to suggest anyone that doesnt own a home should be treated as a second class citizen.

I can't argue with you because your logical deduction is daft.

Well, thats a cop out.

I find it irritating when people come up with crazy pseudo-logical steps or deductions to try to ridicule. It's a form of bullying to try to make someone appear stupid. Vis-a-vis, your statement makes no sense to what I've said.

I own something -> I shouldn't have to pay tax on owning an asset -> People who don't own said asset are second class citizens. That doesn't make sense.

[12gauge]

sidicks said:

This seems to be another 'polictics of envy' discussion from you..

Sidicks

No, its quite simple really.

If i own a £50 million home as my prime residence and sell it for £75 million, i pay no CGT on it.

If i put my £50 million of savings into stocks in productive businesses, (but own no home) and sell for £75 million, i pay quite a lot of tax.

You understand what im getting at, yes? God help you if you dont.

Wheres the envy in wanting a level playing field for renters and homeowners?

[ShadownINja]

12gauge said:

ShadownINja said:

12gauge said:

If you cant afford insurance and tax on a supercar you dont just claim that you shouldnt have to pay, do you? You downsize to something you can afford.

Your analogy fails again. You could buy a supercar and leave it in your garage unused, thus not needing to pay insurance or road tax.

And if someone steals it from your garage?

Regardless, im not trying like for like comparisons here, im trying to prove a very simple point you seem unable to get to grips with.

Why would you buy an asset, that once all possible costs of that asset are counted, you might not be able to afford. If you cant afford the council tax on a larger home, sell it.

The theft is irrelevant. The tax is an arbitrary tax just because you own it.

But as you say, in an ideal world... but with that argument, we can defend the 20% VAT rate.