Personally I would just bring in capital gains tax on the sale of primary homes - make the people making huge unearned profits on house price growth fund the NHS.
Don't see any real issue with a mansion tax - asset rich cash poor pensioners can defer it any way to be charged against their estate. So they will pay nothing while still alive.
I also won't cry for those money laundering sheiks and oligarchs using London property to hide their ill gotten gains when they are hit with a mansion tax bill. The property taxes they pay here are pathetically low compared to what they would pay in New York for example. The most they pay in council tax in prime Mayfair or Belgravia is £1300 a year - most pensioners in a terraced house elsewhere in England pay more.
Some people who live in those properties will not have the incomes still coming in to afford it. Ex footy players, lottery winners, one-hit wonder musicians etc. Some might have poured all their incomes/winnings/savings into buying a nice big house whilst others, with more money and still earning a large income, might have several big properties below the £2m threshold , sports cars etc etc etc. and won't be considered
There are even stately homes that the owners have to open up to the public top try and make ends meet in order to keep running them. What happens to them?
Taxing an asset and automatically assuming the owner is either cash rich or even resident in this country (which begs the question what they'd do if a foreign based owner refused to pay - seize the property?) is a bloody stupid idea and one that presumably won't be able to reflect market values, which presumably would fall as a result.
Presumably this will only apply to residential properties so what's to stop people changing the status of them to business properties? If I had a big old mansion in the country worth millions I'd turn it into an exclusive hotel, one which cost so much to stay nobody would book a room - that or do something with the land in order to make it a separate entity to the house thus reducing the value of the residential estate. I'll bet there will be all kinds of loopholes.
It's a pigging stupid idea, ill conceived and prone to mission creep.
Milliband's Marxist conditioning is now showing very clearly,
He now wants 10 years to turn Britain into a Marxist State "Britain 2025", which sounds like a 60's pop song
You should try moving to that Marxist state of New York. Their property taxes on high value properties are comparable to the proposed mansion tax.
Remind me when the US took up Communism?
Maybe it's about time we charged the mega wealthy in Belgravia, St James's and Mayfair higher annual property taxes than your average person. Cos at present under council tax they pay less.
But enjoy your silly Marxist conspiracy nonsense - the oligarchs and sheikhs who will contribute most of the revenues will barely notice. And if you live in a home worth £2m we can have a whip round for you as your mansion tax will be about £1.50!
No fan of either but PFI was introduced in the UK by the Major govt.
And since 2010 the Coalition has increased our national debt by over £500bn - more than every govt from 1066 to 1997 combined.
So let's not pretend the Tories are much better!
How much did the national debt rise from 1997-2010? During the boom years as well?
Labour left this Country with this massive deficit, and then bemoan any attempt by the coalition, when they try and slash it.
Still I'm sure labour will do much better the next time they get in to power.
Its not a new idea but it is a good one , well done Labour.
I'll just leave this here...
“Another lesson was that you should never commit yourself in Opposition to new taxes unless you have a very good idea how they will operate in practice. We had committed ourselves to a Wealth Tax: but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.‟
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.
Little? I think you'll find they are quite generous.
Personally I would just bring in capital gains tax on the sale of primary homes - make the people making huge unearned profits on house price growth fund the NHS.
Don't see any real issue with a mansion tax - asset rich cash poor pensioners can defer it any way to be charged against their estate. So they will pay nothing while still alive.
I also won't cry for those money laundering sheiks and oligarchs using London property to hide their ill gotten gains when they are hit with a mansion tax bill. The property taxes they pay here are pathetically low compared to what they would pay in New York for example. The most they pay in council tax in prime Mayfair or Belgravia is £1300 a year - most pensioners in a terraced house elsewhere in England pay more.
No party will ever implement Capital Gains Tax against people's first homes as it will a) massively effect their core vote b) ruin the governments plans to keep house prices artificially high.
Your New York example is ridiculous, property taxes simply taxes account for much more of their tax burden but overall they still pay less tax.
But dismissed as sentimental nonsense and that they should live 'within their means', not expect to live where they want. ;-)
If you live in a house which is yours, not mortgaged and have been living there for decades, having bought it when it was a reasonable amount, whilst earning a modest salary, how the hell is it your fault if, because of the crazy, stupid property prices in your area since, it now falls into 'millionaire' status?
I do know, realistically, that you can't do anything about property prices escalating but they really are ridiculous in some parts of the country. This is one of the reasons I hate property developers because they're driving ordinary people now out of owning any property. And removing all trace of character from the houses on the process.
No party will ever implement Capital Gains Tax against people's first homes as it will a) massively effect their core vote b) ruin the governments plans to keep house prices artificially high.
Your New York example is ridiculous, property taxes simply taxes account for much more of their tax burden but overall they still pay less tax.
Why is the New York comparison ridiculous - it's very relevant.
They choose to tax those who have the most the most - we tax productive earned income but barely touch unearned wealth of the mega wealthy, it's very relevant as to the sort of taxation system we should have.
As for your housing comment - it entirely justifies my point. The high cost of housing is a disaster for young people and families - we need to tax it more and working less.
No fan of either but PFI was introduced in the UK by the Major govt.
And since 2010 the Coalition has increased our national debt by over £500bn - more than every govt from 1066 to 1997 combined.
So let's not pretend the Tories are much better!
But it was Labour that overdosed on it. Building all those Mega Hospitals and Schools, claiming all the credit, but leaving future taxpayers to pay for it.
Why is the New York comparison ridiculous - it's very relevant.
They choose to tax those who have the most the most - we tax productive earned income but barely touch unearned wealth of the mega wealthy, it's very relevant as to the sort of taxation system we should have.
As for your housing comment - it entirely justifies my point. The high cost of housing is a disaster for young people and families - we need to tax it more and working less.
The same system that is used in New York also applies in San Bernadino, Harrisburg and Detroit (all bankrupt). Base a system on property prices and then find that when they go down, you get less income, and can spend less - a death spiral that does occur fairly regularly. New York itself was virtually bankrupt in 1975.
A mansion tax at £2 million, gives an incentive for all properties to be worth £1,999,999. Look at how stamp duty works - there are barely any houses on sale between £250,000 and £270,000, just to avoid the higher rate.
No one is willing to do a proper revaluation for council tax purposes and it is accepted that some properties do not pay enough CT so why not have a specific tax on higher value properties?
Or are there many pensioners living in £2000000 plus properties who would be forced to move ?
No one is willing to do a proper revaluation for council tax purposes and it is accepted that some properties do not pay enough CT so why not have a specific tax on higher value properties?
Or are there many pensioners living in £2000000 plus properties who would be forced to move ?
If you are not going to do a revaluation how do you know which properties are worth more than 2 million?
If you are not going to do a revaluation how do you know which properties are worth more than 2 million?
Plus you would have to do regular revaluations otherwise you are have a system like you do with the Council Tax where the bands were set years ago and take no account of price rises or any improvements you have done. If you have a £1.9m house then you will be safe from the tax for years to come - unless of course a future Chancellor lowers the limit.
Some people who live in those properties will not have the incomes still coming in to afford it. Ex footy players, lottery winners, one-hit wonder musicians etc. Some might have poured all their incomes/winnings/savings into buying a nice big house whilst others, with more money and still earning a large income, might have several big properties below the £2m threshold , sports cars etc etc etc. and won't be considered
There are even stately homes that the owners have to open up to the public top try and make ends meet in order to keep running them. What happens to them?
Taxing an asset and automatically assuming the owner is either cash rich or even resident in this country (which begs the question what they'd do if a foreign based owner refused to pay - seize the property?) is a bloody stupid idea and one that presumably won't be able to reflect market values, which presumably would fall as a result.
Presumably this will only apply to residential properties so what's to stop people changing the status of them to business properties? If I had a big old mansion in the country worth millions I'd turn it into an exclusive hotel, one which cost so much to stay nobody would book a room - that or do something with the land in order to make it a separate entity to the house thus reducing the value of the residential estate. I'll bet there will be all kinds of loopholes.
It's a pigging stupid idea, ill conceived and prone to mission creep.
It is a fairer idea than the bedroom tax ever was
I have read this thread and marvelled at how many owners of very expensive houses post on DS for there should be no other reason apart from greed for the opposition to this idea
It is a fairer idea than the bedroom tax ever was
I have read this thread and marvelled at how many owners of very expensive houses post on DS for there should be no other reason apart from greed for the opposition to this idea
Neither the "bedroom tax" nor the "mansion tax" affect me. Both ideas may sound good in principle but both - as we are finding with the spare room supplement - become unworkable in practice. Good taxes are those which are simple to administer and hard to avoid. These taxes are neither of those.
As for "greed", isn't it greedy to want to take money off people who have it?
Hmmm. How Labour are going to get rid of the deficit by 2020 and fund all their spending from taxes such as a mansion tax on the NHS is a trick I'm looking forward to seeing coming out of their hat at the children's economic party.
No fan of either but PFI was introduced in the UK by the Major govt.
And since 2010 the Coalition has increased our national debt by over £500bn - more than every govt from 1066 to 1997 combined.
So let's not pretend the Tories are much better!
Please don't try and spin the national debt political BS to make it sound as if it's additional borrowing. The budget DEFICIT was £160 billion a year when they got into office.
Labour were only ever planning to try and halve it (and leglislate to ensure they did), which over a five year term if reduced down incrementally would have meant reducing the deficit by £16bn a year. Over the same parliamentary term that would have meant they'd have added £640bn to the national debt.
Labour are slagging off the Tories and complaining about how restrictive the books are for a potential incoming Labour government, but the books are, by your figures, £160bn quid better than they'd have been if Labour were in government.
Osborne didn't get the deficit down as far as he'd hoped but the spin coming out of Labour is a deliberate attempt to make it look like additional borrowing rather than a lesser saving.
If they've got to stoop to such desperate attempts to pull the wool they've got nothing to offer
Comments
Don't see any real issue with a mansion tax - asset rich cash poor pensioners can defer it any way to be charged against their estate. So they will pay nothing while still alive.
I also won't cry for those money laundering sheiks and oligarchs using London property to hide their ill gotten gains when they are hit with a mansion tax bill. The property taxes they pay here are pathetically low compared to what they would pay in New York for example. The most they pay in council tax in prime Mayfair or Belgravia is £1300 a year - most pensioners in a terraced house elsewhere in England pay more.
Indeed, when they did away with rates rich people with large houses and big gardens got richer.
There are even stately homes that the owners have to open up to the public top try and make ends meet in order to keep running them. What happens to them?
Taxing an asset and automatically assuming the owner is either cash rich or even resident in this country (which begs the question what they'd do if a foreign based owner refused to pay - seize the property?) is a bloody stupid idea and one that presumably won't be able to reflect market values, which presumably would fall as a result.
Presumably this will only apply to residential properties so what's to stop people changing the status of them to business properties? If I had a big old mansion in the country worth millions I'd turn it into an exclusive hotel, one which cost so much to stay nobody would book a room - that or do something with the land in order to make it a separate entity to the house thus reducing the value of the residential estate. I'll bet there will be all kinds of loopholes.
It's a pigging stupid idea, ill conceived and prone to mission creep.
You should try moving to that Marxist state of New York. Their property taxes on high value properties are comparable to the proposed mansion tax.
Remind me when the US took up Communism?
Maybe it's about time we charged the mega wealthy in Belgravia, St James's and Mayfair higher annual property taxes than your average person. Cos at present under council tax they pay less.
But enjoy your silly Marxist conspiracy nonsense - the oligarchs and sheikhs who will contribute most of the revenues will barely notice. And if you live in a home worth £2m we can have a whip round for you as your mansion tax will be about £1.50!
No different to the contracts for the building of two aircraft carriers.
Is this relevant to this thread.
No fan of either but PFI was introduced in the UK by the Major govt.
And since 2010 the Coalition has increased our national debt by over £500bn - more than every govt from 1066 to 1997 combined.
So let's not pretend the Tories are much better!
Excellent.
Do you think that it was easy to run the country AND service the debts that Labour left us with?
How much did the national debt rise from 1997-2010? During the boom years as well?
Labour left this Country with this massive deficit, and then bemoan any attempt by the coalition, when they try and slash it.
Still I'm sure labour will do much better the next time they get in to power.
I'll just leave this here...
“Another lesson was that you should never commit yourself in Opposition to new taxes unless you have a very good idea how they will operate in practice. We had committed ourselves to a Wealth Tax: but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.‟
Dennis Healey 1989
Income tax, Capital Gains tax and VAT are all much better ways to raise money from those that can afford to pay.
Sorry Labour, but this and the £8/hour minimum wage are signs you've got very few new ideas to offer.
I will not be at all surprised if they have another 5 years in opposition.
Little? I think you'll find they are quite generous.
No party will ever implement Capital Gains Tax against people's first homes as it will a) massively effect their core vote b) ruin the governments plans to keep house prices artificially high.
Your New York example is ridiculous, property taxes simply taxes account for much more of their tax burden but overall they still pay less tax.
If you live in a house which is yours, not mortgaged and have been living there for decades, having bought it when it was a reasonable amount, whilst earning a modest salary, how the hell is it your fault if, because of the crazy, stupid property prices in your area since, it now falls into 'millionaire' status?
I do know, realistically, that you can't do anything about property prices escalating but they really are ridiculous in some parts of the country. This is one of the reasons I hate property developers because they're driving ordinary people now out of owning any property. And removing all trace of character from the houses on the process.
But, I get it.
Why is the New York comparison ridiculous - it's very relevant.
They choose to tax those who have the most the most - we tax productive earned income but barely touch unearned wealth of the mega wealthy, it's very relevant as to the sort of taxation system we should have.
As for your housing comment - it entirely justifies my point. The high cost of housing is a disaster for young people and families - we need to tax it more and working less.
But it was Labour that overdosed on it. Building all those Mega Hospitals and Schools, claiming all the credit, but leaving future taxpayers to pay for it.
The same system that is used in New York also applies in San Bernadino, Harrisburg and Detroit (all bankrupt). Base a system on property prices and then find that when they go down, you get less income, and can spend less - a death spiral that does occur fairly regularly. New York itself was virtually bankrupt in 1975.
A mansion tax at £2 million, gives an incentive for all properties to be worth £1,999,999. Look at how stamp duty works - there are barely any houses on sale between £250,000 and £270,000, just to avoid the higher rate.
Or are there many pensioners living in £2000000 plus properties who would be forced to move ?
If you are not going to do a revaluation how do you know which properties are worth more than 2 million?
Plus you would have to do regular revaluations otherwise you are have a system like you do with the Council Tax where the bands were set years ago and take no account of price rises or any improvements you have done. If you have a £1.9m house then you will be safe from the tax for years to come - unless of course a future Chancellor lowers the limit.
It is a fairer idea than the bedroom tax ever was
I have read this thread and marvelled at how many owners of very expensive houses post on DS for there should be no other reason apart from greed for the opposition to this idea
Neither the "bedroom tax" nor the "mansion tax" affect me. Both ideas may sound good in principle but both - as we are finding with the spare room supplement - become unworkable in practice. Good taxes are those which are simple to administer and hard to avoid. These taxes are neither of those.
As for "greed", isn't it greedy to want to take money off people who have it?
Please don't try and spin the national debt political BS to make it sound as if it's additional borrowing. The budget DEFICIT was £160 billion a year when they got into office.
Labour were only ever planning to try and halve it (and leglislate to ensure they did), which over a five year term if reduced down incrementally would have meant reducing the deficit by £16bn a year. Over the same parliamentary term that would have meant they'd have added £640bn to the national debt.
Labour are slagging off the Tories and complaining about how restrictive the books are for a potential incoming Labour government, but the books are, by your figures, £160bn quid better than they'd have been if Labour were in government.
Osborne didn't get the deficit down as far as he'd hoped but the spin coming out of Labour is a deliberate attempt to make it look like additional borrowing rather than a lesser saving.
If they've got to stoop to such desperate attempts to pull the wool they've got nothing to offer