Labour find a new money tree - the mansion tax

AdsAds Posts: 37,057
Forum Member
Apparently this mansion tax will pay for huge extra funding in the NHS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29318856

In reality Labour may well pour more money into the NHS, but like last time it will be unsustainably borrowed. The mansion tax is just being set up alongside reintroducing the 50% tax rate as a way of bashing the Tories.

I do think that owners of huge homes should pay more, but that should be picked up through reforming council tax banding. A mansion tax disproportionately hits the south east.
«13456716

Comments

  • Net NutNet Nut Posts: 10,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Labour find a new money tree - the mansion tax

    Its not a new idea but it is a good one , well done Labour.
  • steveh31steveh31 Posts: 13,516
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Net Nut wrote: »
    Its not a new idea but it is a good one , well done Labour.

    Is it? You do realise people who own these homes will just leave the UK and go to another country to live that doesn't tax them and then there will be no extra money for the NHS?

    If they have over £2m they won't have any hesitation in upping sticks and moving.

    Another idea where the consequences haven't been thought through and these people might take their businesses with them.
  • PinSarlaPinSarla Posts: 4,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Net Nut wrote: »
    Its not a new idea but it is a good one , well done Labour.

    Yes, well done for yet another tax on aspirations.

    Also it could raise another £1.7 billion p.a., chump change when instead you could cull some quangos and save that money, or reduce inefficiencies elsewhere.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We've heard all these stories before, the reality is people won't leave because they have friends/family in this country.

    Of course if the tax was horrific then people would leave, having no choice. But Labour are hardly likely to do that again.

    A moderate tax is fine, "we're in it together" after all.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,650
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As with all new taxes it won't take the lawyers and accountants long to find loopholes.
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,057
    Forum Member
    LostFool wrote: »
    As with all new taxes it won't take the lawyers and accountants long to find loopholes.

    Absolutely. Taxes on aspiration tend to hit the middle class far more than the rich folk they are supposedly aimed at.
  • steveh31steveh31 Posts: 13,516
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    We've heard all these stories before, the reality is people won't leave because they have friends/family in this country.

    Of course if the tax was horrific then people would leave, having no choice. But Labour are hardly likely to do that again.

    A moderate tax is fine, "we're in it together" after all.

    Gullible.
  • MartinPMartinP Posts: 31,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ads wrote: »
    Absolutely. Taxes on aspiration tend to hit the middle class far more than the rich folk they are supposedly aimed at.

    I can see the threshold being moved down to maybe £1.5m or £1m (tax increase for "millionaires".) And then the threshold will not increase eventually hitting those in the middle just as has happened with IHT.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ads wrote: »
    Apparently this mansion tax will pay for huge extra funding in the NHS

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29318856

    In reality Labour may well pour more money into the NHS, but like last time it will be unsustainably borrowed. The mansion tax is just being set up alongside reintroducing the 50% tax rate as a way of bashing the Tories.

    I do think that owners of huge homes should pay more, but that should be picked up through reforming council tax banding. A mansion tax disproportionately hits the south east.

    No different to this government then; and no different to any government in the developed world who have a debt based money supply from private banks. The real magic money tree is banking....but only for the benefit of banks/banking families...
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,650
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ads wrote: »
    Absolutely. Taxes on aspiration tend to hit the middle class far more than the rich folk they are supposedly aimed at.

    Life can be tough for the well off when compared to the super rich
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764595/Squeezed-upper-middle-hard-maintain-private-education-huge-properties-despite-six-figure-salaries.html

    If you are a Russian or Arab billionaire then you won't care about paying a few thousand more on your £20m house in Kensington but it could be a lot of money to those in a more modest "mansion" such as the one Ed Miliband lives in. His house was worth £2.3m four years ago so goodness know what it is now
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MartinP wrote: »
    I can see the threshold being moved down to maybe £1.5m or £1m (tax increase for "millionaires".) And then the threshold will not increase eventually hitting those in the middle just as has happened with IHT.

    And the 40% tax rate.
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,057
    Forum Member
    WindWalker wrote: »
    And the 40% tax rate.

    The 40% rate definitely needs increasing. Many normal professions are hit by it these days
  • PinSarlaPinSarla Posts: 4,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ads wrote: »
    Absolutely. Taxes on aspiration tend to hit the middle class far more than the rich folk they are supposedly aimed at.

    A bit like IHT. My friends multimillionaire parents will have their estate well set out before their death so that their children (my friend) pay as little as possible. On the other hand, a head teacher who had the good fortune to buy a house in London decades ago will see their children shafted as they don't have the money to 'fix' everything before they shuffle off this mortal coil.

    I digress though, as MartinP mentioned, there will be mission creep, especially if they struggle to raise the taxes from those living in homes worth £2 million+.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PinSarla wrote: »
    Yes, well done for yet another tax on aspirations.

    Also it could raise another £1.7 billion p.a., chump change when instead you could cull some quangos and save that money, or reduce inefficiencies elsewhere.

    What happened to Dave's 'bonfire of the quangos' anyway? How's that going...
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,057
    Forum Member
    PinSarla wrote: »
    A bit like IHT. My friends multimillionaire parents will have their estate well set out before their death so that their children (my friend) pay as little as possible. On the other hand, a head teacher who had the good fortune to buy a house in London decades ago will see their children shafted as they don't have the money to 'fix' everything before they shuffle off this mortal coil.

    I digress though, as MartinP mentioned, there will be mission creep, especially if they struggle to raise the taxes from those living in homes worth £2 million+.

    Yes it would soon be down to £1m. Of course it wouldn't hurt many in Labour voting areas though
  • jenziejenzie Posts: 20,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    christ
    might as well not tax them at all since they're all gonna piss off if do DARE touch their monies!
  • PinSarlaPinSarla Posts: 4,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    What happened to Dave's 'bonfire of the quangos' anyway? How's that going...

    I was hoping that it would have gone ahead full steam, unfortunately they didn't go far enough, merging too many of them and retaining too many of the staff.

    My point still stands. Or a cull of middle & upper management throughout the nation :)
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,650
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ads wrote: »
    Yes it would soon be down to £1m. Of course it wouldn't hurt many in Labour voting areas though

    Apart from the People's Republics of Islington and Primrose Hill, of course.
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,057
    Forum Member
    LostFool wrote: »
    Apart from the People's Republics of Islington and Primrose Hill, of course.

    Well we all know left leaning luvvies are all very tax efficient
  • ElectraElectra Posts: 55,660
    Forum Member
    steveh31 wrote: »
    Is it? You do realise people who own these homes will just leave the UK and go to another country to live that doesn't tax them and then there will be no extra money for the NHS?

    If they have over £2m they won't have any hesitation in upping sticks and moving.

    Another idea where the consequences haven't been thought through and these people might take their businesses with them.

    If it gets rid of the rich foreigners who buy mansions, then leave them standing empty to rot, while people go homeless, then I'm all for it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PinSarla wrote: »
    I was hoping that it would have gone ahead full steam, unfortunately they didn't go far enough, merging too many of them and retaining too many of the staff.

    My point still stands. Or a cull of middle & upper management throughout the nation :)

    Did it go anywhere at all? :confused:
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    The more Labour tax.......the more NHS Administrators will waste.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jenzie wrote: »
    christ
    might as well not tax them at all since they're all gonna piss off if do DARE touch their monies!

    Usual outcry from the right, with a good dose of scaremongering for added effect. It seems far more to their liking to remove the little people on benefits get rather than try to raise anything from the rich. :(
  • steveh31steveh31 Posts: 13,516
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Electra wrote: »
    If it gets rid of the rich foreigners who buy mansions, then leave them standing empty to rot, while people go homeless, then I'm all for it.

    Oh for pete's sake not the homeless on the streets while the rich live in mansions nonsense.

    There are rich and poor in every society nothing will ever change that.

    I
  • ElectraElectra Posts: 55,660
    Forum Member
    steveh31 wrote: »
    Oh for pete's sake not the homeless on the streets while the rich live in mansions nonsense.

    There are rich and poor in every society nothing will ever change that.

    I

    I wouldn't mind so much if they were actually living in them tbh but to buy them as investments, then leave them empty, is obscene.
Sign In or Register to comment.