General Election 2015

[CB Fry]

Whilst it may not be an overtly stated 'purpose' its what they end up doing, surely?

 

I give some of my wealth to Oxfam (for example) and they distribute it to where it needs to go.

 

OK, so I'm over simplifying the process perhaps, but that's because I'm a simple kinda guy.

 

In fairness a charity is more like a retailer/service than a "wealth redistributor". Spending on charity is in its rawest form, is simply a lifestyle choice like going to Tesco or joining Bupa.

 

Your purchase may help others but you are also purchasing your right to go on Web forums and talk about your charity donations you don't like to talk about. And you can bin it all off tomorrow.

 

Not quite wealth redistribution.

[trousers]

In fairness a charity is more like a retailer/service than a "wealth redistributor". Spending on charity is in its rawest form, is simply a lifestyle choice like going to Tesco or joining Bupa.

 

Your purchase may help others but you are also purchasing your right to go on Web forums and talk about your charity donations you don't like to talk about. And you can bin it all off tomorrow.

 

Not quite wealth redistribution.

However one chooses to frame it, my preference is to give any 'spare' cash I have to charities rather than pay more tax. A balance between tax and charity contributions is a good thing IMO. I wouldn't want to see that choice taken away from me via higher taxation.

[CB Fry]

However one chooses to frame it, my preference is to give any 'spare' cash I have to charities rather than pay more tax. A balance between tax and charity contributions is a good thing IMO. I wouldn't want to see that choice taken away from me via higher taxation.

I think you are the one 'framing' it.

[trousers]

I think you are the one 'framing' it.

Correct. Aren't most opinions 'framed' to highlight a particular perspective?

Edited 22 April, 2015 by trousers

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Im not sure I agree.

 

99% of people who can afford a £2m house will be able to afford a tax that is imposed. I also don't beleive it will depress house sales for the same reason, it will be accepted as the cost of living in that house.

 

It it is a bit like when they increased the road fund licences to £400 for high co2 cars. It didn't stop people buying £100k Porsches, they just grizzled a bit and then got on with it.

 

that is not to say I think mansion tax is a good idea,

 

We're not talking a few hundred quid, we're talking tens of thousands of pounds. The market will massively compress between 300k and 2 million, pulling up the prices of lower priced property. A lot of people lucked into their 2 million pound homes just by riding the bubble, and a lot of these would be unsustainable for the owners, pushing them down the ladder.

 

 

"He also pointed out that even a banding system would be problematic as average values for properties at £2 million plus have risen much faster than the national average in recent years. The introduction of mansion tax would have a disastrous effect on the entire London property market, not just those over £2million, according to Edo Mapelli Mozzi, founder of Banda Property.

 

‘Whilst I welcome the suggestion of a tiered system, and also any means to protect people, such as the elderly, who may inhabit large properties yet have a relatively small income, I still believe the introduction of such a tax will not just hit the wealthy, but will affect thousands of home owners, negatively impacting the entire London housing market,’ he said.

 

‘I believe that as a result of these tax changes, investors will pull out of the £2 million plus market to avoid their yields being crippled. Without significant disposable income to allocate to the new tax, they are likely to downsize to properties of around £300,000 to £1.35 million, either smaller in size or in a less pricey area. Any properties with a higher value that this will bring with it a risk of moving into the mansion tax bracket with capital growth,’ he explained.

 

‘Furthermore, similarly to the situation at the lower end of the market when responding to stamp duty thresholds, we anticipate householders whose property is in danger of approaching the £2 million mark, will be less likely to want to invest in home improvements for fear of reaching the threshold. This won’t just affect the property market but the wider economy. If home owners are not investing in improvements and upgrades to their home, the building trade will suffer,’ he added."

 

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-property-mansion-tax-201406259285.html

[Wes Tender]

In fairness a charity is more like a retailer/service than a "wealth redistributor". Spending on charity is in its rawest form, is simply a lifestyle choice like going to Tesco or joining Bupa.

 

Your purchase may help others but you are also purchasing your right to go on Web forums and talk about your charity donations you don't like to talk about. And you can bin it all off tomorrow.

 

Not quite wealth redistribution.

 

Congratulations for labelling charities as being like a retail service and that donating to them is like going to Tesco or joining BUPA. Truly a spectacular trivialisation of the service they provide for the needy.

[hypochondriac]

Congratulations for labelling charities as being like a retail service and that donating to them is like going to Tesco or joining BUPA. Truly a spectacular trivialisation of the service they provide for the needy.

 

It's the same in some respects. I think the point he was making is that it's optional and a lifestyle choice rather than something forced upon them.

[Wes Tender]

But surely if house prices in London are failing now , the mansion tax won't bring in the amounts they claim ?

 

As shown by the Andrew Neil interview of that Labour Shadow minister Jamie Reed, it seems apparent that Labour are not prepared to tell anybody the details of their Mansion Tax. Whether it will be levied on the whole property value or just the amount over £2 million, what the rate will be, or even who the independent experts are who have told them what it will raise. These details of what the Mansion Tax would entail must be known to Labour, unless those independent experts have not told them how they worked out the figures, but their shadow minister doesn't know the details. I wonder who pulled the plug on him when he was floundering so spectacularly to avoid answering the question?

[Wes Tender]

It's the same in some respects. I think the point he was making is that it's optional and a lifestyle choice rather than something forced upon them.

 

It's an optional choice, but Charities are trivialised by his analogy, which is the point I made.

[Whitey Grandad]

20% sales tax on anything deemed a luxury.

 

You could equally say 'anything that's not a necessity'. One advantage of VAT is that the rich have to pay it too.

[badgerx16]

... that's all they care about, getting into power.

 

This is true for politicos of all colours.

[Wes Tender]

You could equally say 'anything that's not a necessity'. One advantage of VAT is that the rich have to pay it too.

 

But what is grossly unfair is that those rich bastards only have to pay the same rate as the poor. That can't be right or just. They should be bled dry on everything the own, everything they earn and everything they buy. That'll teach them.

[Coxford_lou]

I'm ready for the election now, bored of this campaign

 

It was boring...and then this happened:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/the-milifandom?utm_term=.cqERWBOzjG#.tgdpk2gz7

 

#milifandom

#milibae

[Coxford_lou]

Whilst it may not be an overtly stated 'purpose' its what they end up doing, surely?

 

I give some of my wealth to Oxfam (for example) and they distribute it to where it needs to go.

 

OK, so I'm over simplifying the process perhaps, but that's because I'm a simple kinda guy.

 

No, not at all. Charities set up projects that can improve the lives of people. Who those people are is dependent on which charity it is. You will all be benefitting from different charities' work in multiple ways (particularly health charities.)

 

If you're a beneficiary of a charity's help, you won't be getting cash/wealth.

 

It's a very different purpose to paying your taxes and government policies intending to make this country a fairer a more equal place to live.

[trousers]

No, not at all. Charities set up projects that can improve the lives of people. Who those people are is dependent on which charity it is. You will all be benefitting from different charities' work in multiple ways (particularly health charities.)

 

If you're a beneficiary of a charity's help, you won't be getting cash/wealth.

 

It's a very different purpose to paying your taxes and government policies intending to make this country a fairer a more equal place to live.

 

Yes, of course the 'wealth' gets transformed into something more tangible in the process, but I'd still rather have the choice as to where my 'spare' cash goes rather than have more of it siphoned up in taxes. The less tax I pay the more I give to worthy causes. I'm happy with the current balance I'm able to strike between the two.

Edited 22 April, 2015 by trousers
@

[hypochondriac]

It's an optional choice, but Charities are trivialised by his analogy, which is the point I made.

 

Only if you're being overly sensitive about it. I thought his point was clear even though I don't necessarily agree.

[Johnny Bognor]

Your analogy is misleading insofar as it assumes that a car accelerating from 20 to 30 stops at the 30mph speed limit. But there is no evidence that household debt would not have continued to climb: a recessionary shock, not wise Tory policy forced households to deleverage and save. In the same way, household debt began to fall after the crisis under Brown; now it's rising again as the economy is fitfully recovering and all the signs are that debt ratios will leave anything presided over by Labour trailing in the dust.

 

What we do know is that debt-to-income ratios stayed below 100% for 10 years after the late 80's recession, so the 30mph limit wasn't breached for a considerable amount of time. Throughout the noughties they rose again and again, something actively encouraged by Brown with his no more boom and bust mantra. It was clear that the banks were lending far too much money. In some cases 7 times salary on mortgages. In the early nineties, you would be hard pressed to borrow 3 times your salary. There were no 100% mortgages available in the early 90's. It was a disaster waiting to happen. Anyone with half a brain cell could see it.

 

 

The sooner you concede that household debt dynamics have ebbed and flowed with the economic cycle and the supply and demand for the housing (aka reflating the bubble) -rather than which party is in power, the better. Of course, measures such as Help to Buy that artificially inflate property prices by making debt financing more available havent helped;)

 

Of course they ebb and flow with the economic cycle, but moving up and down between 80% and 100% is sustainable. Moving around between 140% and 170% is not sustainable. Agree with Help-to-Buy and that it perpetuates the problem, but the damaging impact of the mansion tax will help offset it

 

 

More generally, nobody disputes that heavy debt, whether household or government, weighs on economic performance; but there is no magic trip wire, some sudden discontinuity where debt suddenly becomes unsustainable, as you imply (see the near universal criticism of Rogoff and Reinhart). Indeed causation may travel in the other direction: low growth reduces tax receipts and therefore causes high debt ratios. Either way, it's not one way traffic.

 

IMO, the best way of getting out of debt is to earn more. This applies to the nation as well as individuals. The nation needs to earn more by creating more and exporting more. This is the best long term route out of the predicament we find ourselves in. There is far more to be done here. Otherwise we will plod on for decades, tinkering with government spending here, tinkering with taxes there. As I have said before, unfortunately political parties have no long term plan, because the chances are they won't be around long enough to execute it.

 

 

History also shows that theres no stable relationship between public debt and GDP growth: much depends, for instance, on whether the economy is operating at capacity. In the wake of the crisis, private investors flocked to gilts and other sovereign bonds -despite low, even negative yields- for want of other safe assets. An ageing population and the need for pension funds to immunise liabilities only adds to to this demand. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/01/government-debt

 

You might not like the word austerity -perhaps it conjures up nasty images of Natalie Bennett having an episode of Tourette's. But the essential fact is that economies are still not out of the woods, as low interest rates indicate.

 

The use of the word austerity is a problem, when the cutting of the defecit is described as "austerity measures". This implies that cutting the defecit is something negative. "Living within your means" measures is a far more accurate way of describing the cuts.

 

Try 'secular stagnation' if you don't like talk of austerity. When savings exceed investment and remain a constraint on demand and growth, my preference is for governments to borrow to finance the kinds of investment that will drive your third industrial revolution. Never mind that the UK can borrow money for less than half a percent for the long term in its own currency. Your alternative -to live within one's means- isn't really an alternative when the risk is of another stall.

 

It is about balance. There are cuts that can be made and investments that can be made, whilst reducing the defecit overall. It is not an either / or argument. It is about priority. Take spending on the fire service. There is a 40% reduction in incidents over the last 10 years, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to reduce the fire service budget by 10% or 20%. We give aid to india, who invest in nuclear weapons and have a space programme. I am not advocating cutting all foreign aid, but in the case of India, that is money that could be saved or better invested elsewhere.

 

 

You don't understand the financial system then. Money is issued as debt. Every mortgage is created out of thin air, a promise to pay by the borrower.

 

The money doesn't come from some finite pile of cash. It's made real by that promise to pay, and enforced by the sort of c##ts that want to be bailiffs, and of course, the force of the state.

 

Which makes almost every comment on sound economic sense utterly redundant. You're recounting a fiction, and expecting people to believe it is real.

 

God forbid, but if a true catastrophe ever befelled our nation, you'd soon learn the value of money.

 

I do understand how it works, but with the creation of money, comes the creation of debt. But creating more money, whether that be the banks lending more or the BOE printing more money, is not a simple solution, as some seem to think it is. More money rushing into the system creates asset bubbles, very much like the housing boom of the noughties. Too much money chasing too few goods creates inflation, which also has its problems. Haven't we learned from our mistakes of the past? The long term solution is not to create more money (although QE is a useful tool in the short term), but to create more wealth. Real wealth. Which will come through innovation and creativity.

Edited 22 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

Taxation and thining outside the box....

 

One area of taxation, that seems to have eluded all political parties, is the classic car market. Although it is a small market, over the last 5 years, investors are making massive tax free profits. You pay captial gains tax on property and on shares, so why is it not applied to the classic car market? There are people who have bought cars for £10,000's selling them for £100,000's, with no CGT. This to me seems to be an easy area to raise taxation, which would be deemed as fair by most, but has been missed completely. Take the 911 Carrera 2.7 RS for example. These have gone up from £65k in 2004 to £450k now. That is an increase of nearly 650%. Totally Tax free. That to me is neither right or fair.

 

Another area for considering taxation, is the growth in ebay shops. There is a big difference between people flogging off their own tat and traders who are buying and selling goods for a profit, as a business. Many people running these are private individuals who are paying no corporation tax, are not collecting VAT and are not paying the business rates paid by traditional retailers. This to me does not seem fair and actually damages our retail industry. This is not a dig at you VFTT, but as you run an ebay business, what are your thoughts on this? Would taxing ebay shops be fair? Or even workable?

Edited 22 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

We're not talking a few hundred quid, we're talking tens of thousands of pounds. The market will massively compress between 300k and 2 million, pulling up the prices of lower priced property. A lot of people lucked into their 2 million pound homes just by riding the bubble, and a lot of these would be unsustainable for the owners, pushing them down the ladder.

 

 

"He also pointed out that even a banding system would be problematic as average values for properties at £2 million plus have risen much faster than the national average in recent years. The introduction of mansion tax would have a disastrous effect on the entire London property market, not just those over £2million, according to Edo Mapelli Mozzi, founder of Banda Property.

 

‘Whilst I welcome the suggestion of a tiered system, and also any means to protect people, such as the elderly, who may inhabit large properties yet have a relatively small income, I still believe the introduction of such a tax will not just hit the wealthy, but will affect thousands of home owners, negatively impacting the entire London housing market,’ he said.

 

‘I believe that as a result of these tax changes, investors will pull out of the £2 million plus market to avoid their yields being crippled. Without significant disposable income to allocate to the new tax, they are likely to downsize to properties of around £300,000 to £1.35 million, either smaller in size or in a less pricey area. Any properties with a higher value that this will bring with it a risk of moving into the mansion tax bracket with capital growth,’ he explained.

 

‘Furthermore, similarly to the situation at the lower end of the market when responding to stamp duty thresholds, we anticipate householders whose property is in danger of approaching the £2 million mark, will be less likely to want to invest in home improvements for fear of reaching the threshold. This won’t just affect the property market but the wider economy. If home owners are not investing in improvements and upgrades to their home, the building trade will suffer,’ he added."

 

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-property-mansion-tax-201406259285.html

 

Can you not differentiate between an expert giving an objective opinion and someone writing from self interest? He's a London property developer.

[buctootim]

Taxation and thining outside the box....

 

One area of taxation, that seems to have eluded all political parties, is the classic car market. Although it is a small market, over the last 5 years, investors are making massive tax free profits. You pay captial gains tax on property and on shares, so why is it not applied to the classic car market? There are people who have bought cars for £10,000's selling them for £100,000's, with no CGT. This to me seems to be an easy area to raise taxation, which would be deemed as fair by most, but has been missed completely. Take the 911 Carrera 2.7 RS for example. These have gone up from £65k in 2004 to £450k now. That is an increase of nearly 650%. Totally Tax free. That to me is neither right or fair.

 

Another area for considering taxation, is the growth in ebay shops. There is a big difference between people flogging off their own tat and traders who are buying and selling goods for a profit, as a business. Many people running these are private individuals who are paying no corporation tax, are not collecting VAT and are not paying the business rates paid by traditional retailers. This to me does not seem fair and actually damages our retail industry. This is not a dig at you VFTT, but as you run an ebay business, what are your thoughts on this? Would taxing ebay shops be fair? Or even workable?

 

I know yours is a purposely provocative post but even so there is a major industry in selling 'used' goods which is both untaxed for VAT and also where many of the sellers dont pay CGT or income tax. Why should a £1m auction item - classic car / painting / looted Assyrian pot be VAT free?

[Wes Tender]

I know yours is a purposely provocative post but even so there is a major industry in selling 'used' goods which is both untaxed for VAT and also where many of the sellers dont pay CGT or income tax. Why should a £1m auction item - classic car / painting / looted Assyrian pot be VAT free?

Johnny Bognor:

This to me seems to be an easy area to raise taxation, which would be deemed as fair by most, but has been missed completely. Take the 911 Carrera 2.7 RS for example. These have gone up from £65k in 2004 to £450k now. That is an increase of nearly 650%. Totally Tax free. That to me is neither right or fair.

 

I think that despite you not appearing to understand the thrust of what JB had written, you are in fact pushing aganst an open door.

[aintforever]

A mansion tax will raise peanuts compared to the amount we spend & good luck with taxing second homes , a decent tax advisor will run rings round that one .

 

With all due respect you are still skirting around the issue . This progressive tax regime of yours , will rates be set to maximise revenue or do you just want a "fair "% out of rich ******s ?

 

You just seem to be throwing insults around about selfish people and rich people blah blah blah , but you can't seem to decide the goal of you tax system . It's a very simple question , do you think the top rate of tax should be set at the rate that brings in most revenue? If a top rate of 35% generated more revenue than 50% would you give millionaires this " tax break" or would you rather less money came in but you'll feel better about yourself , because you've stuck it to the toffs .

 

Of course it should be set up to maximise revenue, I never one mentioned "sticking it to the tiffs", that's something you keep banging on about.

 

I think we could all pay a bit more tax, when I say we I mean anyone with a half decent salary, not just millionaires or the super rich. I don't earn a massive amount but it is above average and the crash/recession/austerity hasn't effected me in the slightest, if anything I have been better off.

 

I read about food banks, cuts to vital services etc and it doesn't seem like we are "all in it together". If you are lucky enough to own a property and have a half decent job this 'austerity' is a right old laff.

[OldNick]

As shown by the Andrew Neil interview of that Labour Shadow minister Jamie Reed, it seems apparent that Labour are not prepared to tell anybody the details of their Mansion Tax. Whether it will be levied on the whole property value or just the amount over £2 million, what the rate will be, or even who the independent experts are who have told them what it will raise. These details of what the Mansion Tax would entail must be known to Labour, unless those independent experts have not told them how they worked out the figures, but their shadow minister doesn't know the details. I wonder who pulled the plug on him when he was floundering so spectacularly to avoid answering the question?

the only cheap way of doing this will be to put the tax on the highest brackets in the council tax bands. The 2m thing IMo is a smokescreen to not spook people.

To assess every property in the country will cost far more than it will raise.

I have asked the question on here, in fact i have asked a few questions on here regarding 'what is the broadest shoulders?' when Ed mentions them paying more and also what now constitutes poverty? Not of the Labour biased posters on here have been able to answer but just brush it off with 'yawn'

[buctootim]

I think that despite you not appearing to understand the thrust of what JB had written, you are in fact pushing against an open door.

 

Im not sure if his was a serious proposal. In any event investigations by HMRC into individuals liability for CGT and income tax are expensive and hard to prove. Requiring Sothebies, Christies, Philips, Amazon, Ebay etc to charge VAT on their used goods sales would be an easy and cheap fix which would address part of the problem.

[Wes Tender]

duplicate

Edited 22 April, 2015 by Wes Tender
delete

[OldNick]

Im not sure if his was a serious proposal. In any event investigations by HMRC into individuals liability for CGT and income tax are expensive and hard to prove. Requiring Sothebies, Christies, Philips, Amazon, Ebay etc to charge VAT on their used goods sales would be an easy and cheap fix which would address part of the problem.

there shouldnt be any duty on items that have already had tax paid on. Phillips are no longer going as Bonhams took them over.

I think that going to football is a luxury and so 20% extra tax should be applied to that, or why not motor racing?

[buctootim]

there shouldnt be any duty on items that have already had tax paid on. Phillips are no longer going as Bonhams took them over.

I think that going to football is a luxury and so 20% extra tax should be applied to that, or why not motor racing?

 

That will be news to Phillips, since they moved to new £30m headquarters last autumn and I was there last week.

 

Tory voter mantra

 

1. We must reduce the deficit

2. We must reduce government spending

3. You cant cut any of the big cost centres - pensions, or health, or care homes, or care for the elderly services

4. You cant increase taxes

5. There is a big magic pot of waste somewhere which we can easily cut and solve all the problems.

[Johnny Bognor]

Im not sure if his was a serious proposal. In any event investigations by HMRC into individuals liability for CGT and income tax are expensive and hard to prove. Requiring Sothebies, Christies, Philips, Amazon, Ebay etc to charge VAT on their used goods sales would be an easy and cheap fix which would address part of the problem.

 

It was a serious proposal. You pay CGT on the gain in investment property when you make it, but you don't pay it on other assets. There are a significant number of people who have pulled out of property and have made gains in the classic car market, net of tax. I believe that applying CGT to all capital gains is fair, as it's unfair to tax some gains and not others. I beleive, if it could be implemented, it wouldn't meet with much opposition.

 

If people are trading on ebay, buying and selling goods for a profit, this should be taxed. I know retailers who are struggling to compete with online, as there is not a level playing field. They have to take more risk and pay more tax. I cannot see this as fair.

 

How about doing away with car tax and implementing a higher levy on fuel? This would be fair. The more you drive or the more you burn (with gas guzzling cars), the more you pay. It is much harder to avoid, reduces administration and the costs of DVLA. Increasing revenue and reducing cost at the same time. Again, without abandoning common sense, it is hard to disagree with it (and I drive a lot and own gas guzzling cars). Surely people in the Labour party can see that there are many ways to increase the tax take, in a fair manner, whilst reducing costs too?

Edited 22 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Wes Tender]

That will be news to Phillips, since they moved to new £30m headquarters last autumn and I was there last week.

 

Tory voter mantra

 

1. We must reduce the deficit

2. We must reduce government spending

3. You cant cut any of the big cost centres - pensions, or health, or care homes, or care for the elderly services

4. You cant increase taxes

5. There is a big magic pot of waste somewhere which we can easily cut and solve all the problems.

 

This must be the Conservatives' equivalent of Labour's Magic Money Tree.

[View From The Top]

If people are trading on ebay, buying and selling goods for a profit, this should be taxed.

 

It is. VAT on listing fees, local taxes when goods purchased and profits are subject to income tax when you are registered as a business seller.

 

HTH.

[buctootim]

It is. VAT on listing fees, local taxes when goods purchased and profits are subject to income tax when you are registered as a business seller.

 

HTH.

VAT on listing fees but no VAT on selling price unless the goods are new?

[saint si]

VAT on listing fees but no VAT on selling price unless the goods are new?

 

eBay sellers are subject to VAT just the same as they would be for transactions outside eBay. It's not eBay's job to collect / pay the VAT - that responsibility falls on the seller (where VAT applies).

[OldNick]

That will be news to Phillips, since they moved to new £30m headquarters last autumn and I was there last week.

 

Tory voter mantra

 

1. We must reduce the deficit

2. We must reduce government spending

3. You cant cut any of the big cost centres - pensions, or health, or care homes, or care for the elderly services

4. You cant increase taxes

5. There is a big magic pot of waste somewhere which we can easily cut and solve all the problems.

Which Phillips are you talking about ?

I have just looked them up, that is not the Phillips that i was thinking of, but Phillips son and Neale who were swallowed up by Bonhams. The one you are talking about ,you can put as much tax on them as you like as they seem to be selling contemporary art. Emperors new clothes as far as im concerned, but it is all down to personal taste

Edited 22 April, 2015 by OldNick

[Johnny Bognor]

It is. VAT on listing fees, local taxes when goods purchased and profits are subject to income tax when you are registered as a business seller.

 

HTH.

 

Cheers for clearing that up. I can stop banging on about it now

[Wade Garrett]

The mansion tax will have far less effect on the payers and the housing market than the 3% stamp duty on properties sold for over £250k. The idea that poor people who have lived in their multi-million pound houses for years, and will find it tough to pay this tax is, quite frankly, laughable.

[Wade Garrett]

We're not talking a few hundred quid, we're talking tens of thousands of pounds. The market will massively compress between 300k and 2 million, pulling up the prices of lower priced property. A lot of people lucked into their 2 million pound homes just by riding the bubble, and a lot of these would be unsustainable for the owners, pushing them down the ladder.

 

 

"He also pointed out that even a banding system would be problematic as average values for properties at £2 million plus have risen much faster than the national average in recent years. The introduction of mansion tax would have a disastrous effect on the entire London property market, not just those over £2million, according to Edo Mapelli Mozzi, founder of Banda Property.

 

‘Whilst I welcome the suggestion of a tiered system, and also any means to protect people, such as the elderly, who may inhabit large properties yet have a relatively small income, I still believe the introduction of such a tax will not just hit the wealthy, but will affect thousands of home owners, negatively impacting the entire London housing market,’ he said.

 

‘I believe that as a result of these tax changes, investors will pull out of the £2 million plus market to avoid their yields being crippled. Without significant disposable income to allocate to the new tax, they are likely to downsize to properties of around £300,000 to £1.35 million, either smaller in size or in a less pricey area. Any properties with a higher value that this will bring with it a risk of moving into the mansion tax bracket with capital growth,’ he explained.

 

‘Furthermore, similarly to the situation at the lower end of the market when responding to stamp duty thresholds, we anticipate householders whose property is in danger of approaching the £2 million mark, will be less likely to want to invest in home improvements for fear of reaching the threshold. This won’t just affect the property market but the wider economy. If home owners are not investing in improvements and upgrades to their home, the building trade will suffer,’ he added."

 

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-property-mansion-tax-201406259285.html

 

Dont agree with any of that. Total horsesh*t.

[Wade Garrett]

But what is grossly unfair is that those rich bastards only have to pay the same rate as the poor. That can't be right or just. They should be bled dry on everything the own, everything they earn and everything they buy. That'll teach them.

 

VAT is a regressive tax though.

 

I know quite a few rich people who are very pleasant by the way.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The mansion tax will have far less effect on the payers and the housing market than the 3% stamp duty on properties sold for over £250k. The idea that poor people who have lived in their multi-million pound houses for years, and will find it tough to pay this tax is, quite frankly, laughable.

 

There has already been massive fall in property purchase of houses over the 2 million threshold, so much so it has contributed to a much lower price increase in London compared to the capitals average.

 

http://www.cityam.com/213957/uk-house-prices-hit-new-high-growth-slows-its-lowest-fro-16-months-london-feels-effects-stamp

Edited 22 April, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff
Thinking one thing, typing another...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Dont agree with any of that. Total horsesh*t.

 

Fair enough, we'll see soon enough if Labour get into power.

 

One of my friends owns a house that is worth 1.6m in Clapham, they paid £500k for it in 2006. However, I know they will struggle to pay a £10k bill per year to live there if their property hits the threshold.

Edited 22 April, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[OldNick]

The mansion tax will have far less effect on the payers and the housing market than the 3% stamp duty on properties sold for over £250k. The idea that poor people who have lived in their multi-million pound houses for years, and will find it tough to pay this tax is, quite frankly, laughable.

the stamp duty is a one off pay out, not every year. Forget not the stamp duty on the high priced house is higher, it was galling when I had to pay 40k some years back. All for nothing as far as i was concerned.

[Wade Garrett]

the stamp duty is a one off pay out, not every year. Forget not the stamp duty on the high priced house is higher, it was galling when I had to pay 40k some years back. All for nothing as far as i was concerned.

 

As galling as it was, it has had little effect on the property market.

[JackFrost]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32384397

 

Jeez, no wonder Blair moved Labour towards the centre.

[Johnny Bognor]

I did LOL at Scargills Socialist Labour mainfesto launch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32384397) which makes the communist party look like a load of right wingers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32405165)

 

By comparison, these chaps talk sense... http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/

Edited 22 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

There has already been massive fall in property purchase of houses over the 2 million threshold, so much so it has contributed to a much lower price increase in London compared to the country average.

 

http://www.cityam.com/213957/uk-house-prices-hit-new-high-growth-slows-its-lowest-fro-16-months-london-feels-effects-stamp

 

Are you not able to understand what the article says? London had the highest house price inflation.

[buctootim]

I did LOL at Scargills Socialist Labour mainfesto launch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32384397) which makes the communist party look like a load of right wingers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32405165)

 

He's a conviction politician untroubled by focus groups. I'd have thought he'd be popular

[JackFrost]

I did LOL at Scargills Socialist Labour mainfesto launch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32384397) which makes the communist party look like a load of right wingers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32405165)

 

By comparison, these chaps talk sense... http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/

 

A couple of my favourite Scargill moments.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25731328

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20303797

 

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[OldNick]

As galling as it was, it has had little effect on the property market.

no it didnt, but people with houses far more valuable houses pay a decent whack when they buy. They pay higher rates of stamp duty and so already pay more than the average.

A mansion tax would be payable every year.

I suspect in time the tax will be factored in in the price.This is a regressive tax, 20 years ago 100k would have got you a lot, 30years ago 60k would have got you a detached house in the new Forest and 35 years ago 30k would have bought you a 1930's house in a nice estate. Had this idea been 0put into place in those periods we would all now be paying the mansion tax. Be careful what you wish for, as it will effect rentals as well as homeowners in some way of other as time goes on.

[buctootim]

no it didnt, but people with houses far more valuable houses pay a decent whack when they buy. They pay higher rates of stamp duty and so already pay more than the average.

A mansion tax would be payable every year.

I suspect in time the tax will be factored in in the price.This is a regressive tax, 20 years ago 100k would have got you a lot, 30years ago 60k would have got you a detached house in the new Forest and 35 years ago 30k would have bought you a 1930's house in a nice estate. Had this idea been 0put into place in those periods we would all now be paying the mansion tax. Be careful what you wish for, as it will effect rentals as well as homeowners in some way of other as time goes on.

 

Im not a fan of the mansion tax - Id rather see such an increase in the supply of high quality houses that houses priced at £2m were truly exceptional cases. That said, until nirvana is reached, it seems an okay way to temporarily help plug a gap in public finances.

[saint si]

no it didnt, but people with houses far more valuable houses pay a decent whack when they buy. They pay higher rates of stamp duty and so already pay more than the average.

A mansion tax would be payable every year.

I suspect in time the tax will be factored in in the price.This is a regressive tax, 20 years ago 100k would have got you a lot, 30years ago 60k would have got you a detached house in the new Forest and 35 years ago 30k would have bought you a 1930's house in a nice estate. Had this idea been 0put into place in those periods we would all now be paying the mansion tax. Be careful what you wish for, as it will effect rentals as well as homeowners in some way of other as time goes on.

 

It's a lot of things, but it's clearly not regressive. You can bet that there's a pretty strong correlation between personal wealth and property value. There may be outliers where "poor" people can't afford to live in a £2m house, but downsizing wouldn't necessarily be a terrible idea in that situation.

 

In terms of implementation, unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it be easier to just require councils to introduce a new top band of council tax and then reduce central government contribution to council spending on a like-for-like basis? Would solve issues with cost of valuation and would ensure no additional cost of collection. Probably wouldn't be so politically interesting, and less valuable in the battle for votes.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Instead of a mansion tax why don't they just use up to date Council Tax bandings, that's where the issue is nowadays.