On mansion tax, I noted that Balls said yesterday that anyone earning over £42000 would not be allowed to defer the tax to sale or death.
Now I have no idea how many people earning just over that sum who bought their house decades ago and must now find ca. £2K p.a. to pay the mansion tax. But it's worth noting that at that level of income:-
1. They will be basic rate tax payers. Only a tiny proportion of their income will be subject to the 40p tax rate let alone anything higher. The optics of having a mansion tax paid by basic rate tax payers who are - in effect - being penalised for having lived in their homes a long time and inflation- are not good for Labour. It will increase the fear that this will very rapidly become a tax on all houses.
2. Finding an extra £2K p.a. to pay is not going to be easy. The tax could easily become a person's single biggest commitment.
It seems to me that Labour have made a silly mistake by their reference to the £42K threshold because it will allow others to say that Labour think anyone earning over this level is the sort of mega-rich mansion owner that people think of when talking about £2mio + houses.
Hodges rages against the Mansion Tax in this afternoon's blog piece in DT, describing it as "a tax on voting Labour in London". Partly he's mad with anger because he will now pay it. Or he will if Labour win, but he doesn't think they will so why is he worried?
What he doesn't say is that this is creating a new class of tax, effectively a state ground rent on people's property (although he does say he doesn't believe it will stay at £2million mark, which is sort of saying the same thing). Maybe we do want this kind of tax in this country, but the debate has been lacking on the longer term consequences.
I'm just throwing this out there: equity release. Sell 10% of the £2m house and you've covered the mansion tax for a century.
Fundamentally there are two ways you owns a £2m house:
1. You are rich, and you buy a £2m house 2. You buy a cheaper house which rises in value
If it's the former you can afford the tax easily. If it's the latter you have profit tied up in the house which dwarfs your tax burden from it. Either sell the house and move somewhere smaller/cheaper or keep the house and equity release a small amount of it. If you choose to move you get to keep the vast windfall profit and don't even have to pay the mansion tax.
Do you really believe for one minute that this man was just being provocative?
What I believe is that this has been in the public domain for more than a decade, the German Green Party appointed an independent investigator to examine that party's conduct in the 1980s, and I hope that if there was any reality behind those passages that he would have faced prosecution by now.
Although I know that a lot of people guilty of child abuse do still manage to escape prosecution I cannot go around attempting to be judge and jury myself in place of due process.
You sound like someone about to create a vigilante gang.
Anyone reading this might think UKIP are involved a holocaust denier in the EU.. but they aren't
How easily a false impression is allowed to flourish
According to the interview I saw UKIP have joined with a guy who thinks that women should be beaten and who's leader is the holocaust denier. Is that the case?
His leader is apparently a holocaust denier yes.. and he is also not in the group with UKIP
The other guy says the wife beating comment was a joke doesn't he? Is that a reason not to be involved with him?
Wriggling a bit to get hold of the dosh, just like the other politicians.
On mansion tax, I noted that Balls said yesterday that anyone earning over £42000 would not be allowed to defer the tax to sale or death.
Now I have no idea how many people earning just over that sum who bought their house decades ago and must now find ca. £2K p.a. to pay the mansion tax. But it's worth noting that at that level of income:-
1. They will be basic rate tax payers. Only a tiny proportion of their income will be subject to the 40p tax rate let alone anything higher. The optics of having a mansion tax paid by basic rate tax payers who are - in effect - being penalised for having lived in their homes a long time and inflation- are not good for Labour. It will increase the fear that this will very rapidly become a tax on all houses.
2. Finding an extra £2K p.a. to pay is not going to be easy. The tax could easily become a person's single biggest commitment.
It seems to me that Labour have made a silly mistake by their reference to the £42K threshold because it will allow others to say that Labour think anyone earning over this level is the sort of mega-rich mansion owner that people think of when talking about £2mio + houses.
Hodges rages against the Mansion Tax in this afternoon's blog piece in DT, describing it as "a tax on voting Labour in London". Partly he's mad with anger because he will now pay it. Or he will if Labour win, but he doesn't think they will so why is he worried?
What he doesn't say is that this is creating a new class of tax, effectively a state ground rent on people's property (although he does say he doesn't believe it will stay at £2million mark, which is sort of saying the same thing). Maybe we do want this kind of tax in this country, but the debate has been lacking on the longer term consequences.
I'm just throwing this out there: equity release. Sell 10% of the £2m house and you've covered the mansion tax for a century.
Fundamentally there are two ways you owns a £2m house:
1. You are rich, and you buy a £2m house 2. You buy a cheaper house which rises in value
If it's the former you can afford the tax easily. If it's the latter you have profit tied up in the house which dwarfs your tax burden from it. Either sell the house and move somewhere smaller/cheaper or keep the house and equity release a small amount of it. If you choose to move you get to keep the vast windfall profit and don't even have to pay the mansion tax.
The State needs to cut spending not find ever more crippling ways of milking the taxpayer and electorate for ever more cash.
(I'd have a bit more belief in a so called 'Mansion Tax' if it the thresholds varied on geographic regions/local values)
How comfortable are our resident kippers with the idea of UKIP being associated with this MEP for funding purposes, given his past statements and the views of his party leader?
This is intended as an open and free-standing question.
Couldn't give a toss.
If I could be bothered to look I am sure I would find MEPs belonging to other groupings in the European Parliament who have some some views or past conduct that many would regard as beyond the acceptable limits but nobody is going on about how Labour/Lib Dems/Conservatives are thereby tainted by the association. Furthermore didn't we go through all this with the Conservative Party being the villains of the piece just a couple of years ago? I seem to remember at least one poster on here, with a supporting chorus, going on and on about it.
Its the sort of issue that will cause some political anoraks to get their knickers in a twist and puff themselves up with righteous indignation but will pass by the average voter and even a goodly number of political anoraks.
How comfortable are our resident kippers with the idea of UKIP being associated with this MEP for funding purposes, given his past statements and the views of his party leader?
This is intended as an open and free-standing question.
I can't say that I'm thrilled by his presence, but it's a case of needs must. The rules of the EU Parliament drastically reduce the power of any party that is Non Iscrit.
It sounds a bit like the rules create two classes of MEP within the Parliament, but for less justifiable reasons than the English Votes for English Laws proposal (which I dislike).
Oh for a reforming Europhile who would sort the EU out and sweep away all the various bits of nonsense and offences against democracy. Where is that person hiding?
Do you really believe for one minute that this man was just being provocative?
What I believe is that this has been in the public domain for more than a decade, the German Green Party appointed an independent investigator to examine that party's conduct in the 1980s, and I hope that if there was any reality behind those passages that he would have faced prosecution by now.
Although I know that a lot of people guilty of child abuse do still manage to escape prosecution I cannot go around attempting to be judge and jury myself in place of due process.
You sound like someone about to create a vigilante gang.
I am not arguing for him to be thrown in a cell to rot. You are right: that should require due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, at the same time, I can accept that the balance of probabilities based on someone that made numerous claims over the course of a decade is that he probably did it. I also think it is appropriate to question whether the Greens should have been happy to join his grouping.
On mansion tax, I noted that Balls said yesterday that anyone earning over £42000 would not be allowed to defer the tax to sale or death.
Now I have no idea how many people earning just over that sum who bought their house decades ago and must now find ca. £2K p.a. to pay the mansion tax. But it's worth noting that at that level of income:-
1. They will be basic rate tax payers. Only a tiny proportion of their income will be subject to the 40p tax rate let alone anything higher. The optics of having a mansion tax paid by basic rate tax payers who are - in effect - being penalised for having lived in their homes a long time and inflation- are not good for Labour. It will increase the fear that this will very rapidly become a tax on all houses.
2. Finding an extra £2K p.a. to pay is not going to be easy. The tax could easily become a person's single biggest commitment.
It seems to me that Labour have made a silly mistake by their reference to the £42K threshold because it will allow others to say that Labour think anyone earning over this level is the sort of mega-rich mansion owner that people think of when talking about £2mio + houses.
Hodges rages against the Mansion Tax in this afternoon's blog piece in DT, describing it as "a tax on voting Labour in London". Partly he's mad with anger because he will now pay it. Or he will if Labour win, but he doesn't think they will so why is he worried?
What he doesn't say is that this is creating a new class of tax, effectively a state ground rent on people's property (although he does say he doesn't believe it will stay at £2million mark, which is sort of saying the same thing). Maybe we do want this kind of tax in this country, but the debate has been lacking on the longer term consequences.
I'm just throwing this out there: equity release. Sell 10% of the £2m house and you've covered the mansion tax for a century.
Fundamentally there are two ways you owns a £2m house:
1. You are rich, and you buy a £2m house 2. You buy a cheaper house which rises in value
If it's the former you can afford the tax easily. If it's the latter you have profit tied up in the house which dwarfs your tax burden from it. Either sell the house and move somewhere smaller/cheaper or keep the house and equity release a small amount of it. If you choose to move you get to keep the vast windfall profit and don't even have to pay the mansion tax.
I'm actually personally not against taxing the sort of people who live in £2m houses, no matter how they came by them. What I'm concerned about is the huge potential change in the tax system that a Mansion Tax potentially represents. Why not add some more bands to Council Tax?
How comfortable are our resident kippers with the idea of UKIP being associated with this MEP for funding purposes, given his past statements and the views of his party leader?
This is intended as an open and free-standing question.
I can't say that I'm thrilled by his presence, but it's a case of needs must. The rules of the EU Parliament drastically reduce the power of any party that is Non Iscrit.
It sounds a bit like the rules create two classes of MEP within the Parliament, but for less justifiable reasons than the English Votes for English Laws proposal (which I dislike).
Oh for a reforming Europhile who would sort the EU out and sweep away all the various bits of nonsense and offences against democracy. Where is that person hiding?
Sadly, most Europhiles take a Catholic Church-like position on this: it's considered worst to draw attention to the horrendous problems of something they love than to bring them to light in order to sort them out.
I am enjoying how the members of the Jewish Board of Deputies have become a part of the metropolitan liberal elite for daring to criticise UKIP's relationship with a Polish Nazi sympathiser. How dare they speak out in that way. It's PC gone mad. The only possible explanation is that they are hypocritical lefties.
Stereotype the other side's views all you want. Why do you think there was no media coverage or groups criticising a self-confessed paedophile who wasn't just IN the Greens group, but actually LED it?
I am not sure what that has to do with the Board of Deputies. Are you saying that unless the criticise everything wrong they cannot criticise anything. From where I am sitting matters relating to the holocaust and Nazism look like things Jewish organisations have every right to express opinions on. I don't believe a failure to criticise the Greens disqualifies them from doing so. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
The Board of Deputies have been arguably the strongest campaigners against free speech in this country. Odious organisation.
I'm actually personally not against taxing the sort of people who live in £2m houses, no matter how they came by them. What I'm concerned about is the huge potential change in the tax system that a Mansion Tax potentially represents. Why not add some more bands to Council Tax?
Because then Ed Balls wouldn't get his greedy hands on the cash.
More stuff about Nigel's new friends, it gets better and better. I hope the money is worth it.
"KNP founder Janusz Korwin-Mikke was fined last month for using racist language at a debate, caused outrage with comments on the Holocaust and disagreeing with women's right to vote.
He said in 2007: "Women still should not have the right to vote. Just choose any political meeting at random and see how many women are present."
He also reportedly claimed that Hitler would be acquitted from court today as he had no idea that the Nazis were waging atrocities on Jewish people across Europe.
Mr Korwin-Mikke said: "Show me even one sentence of Hitler, that will attest to the fact that he knew about the extermination of the Jews. You will not find [it]."
This is the second plainly inappropriate Inquiry head to be nominated.
You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect it is deliberate.
BBC News24 - claiming 'it would take a couple of years'...
looks as if the wide terms of reference covering many different aspects of abuse is a deliberate ploy to kick whole subject into the long grass until long after the 2015 GE.
Yes, Spyn, it looks that way.
I actually have no problem with it being held over beyond the next GE. In general, I think it is not helpful for sensitive inquiries to be held at politically crucial times. I am however bothered by what appears to be going on here.
If any of us were invited to head an Inquiry into possible wrongdoings by a string of suspects, one of whom was a personal acquaintance, we would surely say 'Thanks, but I can't do it because I know X.' It wouldn't imply X was guilty, nor even that we were incapable of being fair and objective. But it just wouldn't look right, and we would know that.
That doesn't seem to have occurred to this lady, or those that nominated her.
On mansion tax, I noted that Balls said yesterday that anyone earning over £42000 would not be allowed to defer the tax to sale or death.
Now I have no idea how many people earning just over that sum who bought their house decades ago and must now find ca. £2K p.a. to pay the mansion tax. But it's worth noting that at that level of income:-
1. They will be basic rate tax payers. Only a tiny proportion of their income will be subject to the 40p tax rate let alone anything higher. The optics of having a mansion tax paid by basic rate tax payers who are - in effect - being penalised for having lived in their homes a long time and inflation- are not good for Labour. It will increase the fear that this will very rapidly become a tax on all houses.
2. Finding an extra £2K p.a. to pay is not going to be easy. The tax could easily become a person's single biggest commitment.
It seems to me that Labour have made a silly mistake by their reference to the £42K threshold because it will allow others to say that Labour think anyone earning over this level is the sort of mega-rich mansion owner that people think of when talking about £2mio + houses.
Hodges rages against the Mansion Tax in this afternoon's blog piece in DT, describing it as "a tax on voting Labour in London". Partly he's mad with anger because he will now pay it. Or he will if Labour win, but he doesn't think they will so why is he worried?
What he doesn't say is that this is creating a new class of tax, effectively a state ground rent on people's property (although he does say he doesn't believe it will stay at £2million mark, which is sort of saying the same thing). Maybe we do want this kind of tax in this country, but the debate has been lacking on the longer term consequences.
I'm just throwing this out there: equity release. Sell 10% of the £2m house and you've covered the mansion tax for a century.
Fundamentally there are two ways you owns a £2m house:
1. You are rich, and you buy a £2m house 2. You buy a cheaper house which rises in value
If it's the former you can afford the tax easily. If it's the latter you have profit tied up in the house which dwarfs your tax burden from it. Either sell the house and move somewhere smaller/cheaper or keep the house and equity release a small amount of it. If you choose to move you get to keep the vast windfall profit and don't even have to pay the mansion tax.
Mind you, the costs of selling the house and buying another one will probably exceed the costs of the tax for a good few years. As a money saving measure it may not be the best option, particularly for those richer in years.
How comfortable are our resident kippers with the idea of UKIP being associated with this MEP for funding purposes, given his past statements and the views of his party leader?
This is intended as an open and free-standing question.
Couldn't give a toss.
If I could be bothered to look I am sure I would find MEPs belonging to other groupings in the European Parliament who have some some views or past conduct that many would regard as beyond the acceptable limits but nobody is going on about how Labour/Lib Dems/Conservatives are thereby tainted by the association. Furthermore didn't we go through all this with the Conservative Party being the villains of the piece just a couple of years ago? I seem to remember at least one poster on here, with a supporting chorus, going on and on about it.
Its the sort of issue that will cause some political anoraks to get their knickers in a twist and puff themselves up with righteous indignation but will pass by the average voter and even a goodly number of political anoraks.
@suttonnick AUDIO: Nigel Farage - when Polish MEP said hitting a wife can bring them "back down to earth", it was "a joke" bbc.in/1wibKgU #wato
What larks...
Wife beating, racist songs, it's all one big joke to the Farage Party...
Korwin-Mikke is a popular public figure in mass media and on the internet, mainly due to often unusual or eccentric ways of demonstrating his political stances. For instance, he protested against high taxes in Poland by eating his tax return together with Polish musician Krzysztof Skiba in front of the Polish revenue service office.[11]
I'm actually personally not against taxing the sort of people who live in £2m houses, no matter how they came by them. What I'm concerned about is the huge potential change in the tax system that a Mansion Tax potentially represents. Why not add some more bands to Council Tax?
Because then Ed Balls wouldn't get his greedy hands on the cash.
On mansion tax, I noted that Balls said yesterday that anyone earning over £42000 would not be allowed to defer the tax to sale or death.
I'm just throwing this out there: equity release. Sell 10% of the £2m house and you've covered the mansion tax for a century.
Fundamentally there are two ways you owns a £2m house:
1. You are rich, and you buy a £2m house 2. You buy a cheaper house which rises in value
If it's the former you can afford the tax easily. If it's the latter you have profit tied up in the house which dwarfs your tax burden from it. Either sell the house and move somewhere smaller/cheaper or keep the house and equity release a small amount of it. If you choose to move you get to keep the vast windfall profit and don't even have to pay the mansion tax.
Selling is an option but 3 main issues with it:-
1. It would be better to have a tax on property based on sale values rather than on some notional value. That way you tax the actual profit. 2. Why would people buy a house at £2 mio when you're going to be landed with a significant extra tax? 3. Those who have lived in a house for decades are very emotionally attached to it. You're effectively telling people that they have to be forced out of a much loved family home at an elderly age in order to realise some money to pay a tax on a notional value and without giving them the option to defer the tax until death. This last category - hitting the elderly widow who wants to die in the house she lived in with her husband - seems to me especially mean-spirited.
Far better IMO to have a tax on sales - all sales or more council tax bands at higher levels. But basing taxes on property inflation when it is largely government policies and failures which have caused such property inflation is stupid.
If this mansion tax comes in I fully expect it within a few years to hit houses at much much lower levels, to hit pretty much every home in London and the South East and, before long, every home in the country. Labour are being dishonest in pretending that they can raise via this tax a couple of billion from a few Russian billionaires.
It's deja vu all over again. Back in 2009, the leader of the Conservatives' Polish partner in the ECR, Michael Kaminski, was branded a holocaust-denier.
It's deja vu all over again. Back in 2009, the leader of the Conservatives' Polish partner in the ECR, Michael Kaminski, was branded a holocaust-denier.
God, it's boring. It was dull when I checked in (briefly) over 2 hours ago; it's still going on now.
This discussion was tedious and pointless enough the first time round, in 2009. But at least Tim tried to entertain with it.
Life's too short. See you on the next thread. Maybe.
Dem beardy Jews are causin' a stink But dey can't tell us what to tink It's time to fight back, it's our country too We'll take no lesson off no Jew
To a fun-filled calypso beat, of course.
We await the equivalent liberal outrage when it is revealed that the UK Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP are members of a European Party (the GEFA) co-chaired by an ex-communist revolutionary and self-confessed pedophile who has written of his "beautiful seduction" by a six year old girl - Daniel Cohn-Bendit.
You´re better off waiting for the second coming. Or Godot.
I am struggling to work out why it is unreasonable for the British Board of Deputies to be upset that UKIP is working with a Holocaust denier. Can you help?
No you aren't. You're deliberately missing the point - stick to election/referendum forecasting where your credibility is fully established on this site.
So you can't explain it. They just shouldn't. Got it.
Er no - you don't want to get it because you seem to approve of the 'political correctness' meme when used against the right whilst ignoring it when it applies to the left. Add a heavy ladle of sarcasm and faux innocence and your work is complete.
Ed Miliband's deputy leader was in the same group as people that were convicted of viewing child pornography. How do Miliband's supporters feel about this?
Dem beardy Jews are causin' a stink But dey can't tell us what to tink It's time to fight back, it's our country too We'll take no lesson off no Jew
To a fun-filled calypso beat, of course.
We await the equivalent liberal outrage when it is revealed that the UK Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP are members of a European Party (the GEFA) co-chaired by an ex-communist revolutionary and self-confessed pedophile who has written of his "beautiful seduction" by a six year old girl - Daniel Cohn-Bendit.
You´re better off waiting for the second coming. Or Godot.
I am struggling to work out why it is unreasonable for the British Board of Deputies to be upset that UKIP is working with a Holocaust denier. Can you help?
No you aren't. You're deliberately missing the point - stick to election/referendum forecasting where your credibility is fully established on this site.
So you can't explain it. They just shouldn't. Got it.
Er no - you don't want to get it because you seem to approve of the 'political correctness' meme when used against the right whilst ignoring it when it applies to the left. Add a heavy ladle of sarcasm and faux innocence and your work is complete.
Nope, I was just wondering why the Board of Deputies criticising UKIP made them part of the metropolitan liberal elite. No sarcasm there, just bewilderment.
Nope, I was just wondering why the Board of Deputies criticising UKIP made them part of the metropolitan liberal elite. No sarcasm there, just bewilderment.
I'm just wondering (a) where you got this claim from that nobody made and (b) why you don't answer anybody's questions about this issue.
@suttonnick AUDIO: Nigel Farage - when Polish MEP said hitting a wife can bring them "back down to earth", it was "a joke" bbc.in/1wibKgU #wato
What larks...
Wife beating, racist songs, it's all one big joke to the Farage Party...
Korwin-Mikke is a popular public figure in mass media and on the internet, mainly due to often unusual or eccentric ways of demonstrating his political stances. For instance, he protested against high taxes in Poland by eating his tax return together with Polish musician Krzysztof Skiba in front of the Polish revenue service office.[11]
"He writes the most popular political blog in Poland"
Ed Miliband's deputy leader was in the same group as people that were convicted of viewing child pornography. How do Miliband's supporters feel about this?
Let's shine the spotlight on all politicians. It's because UKIP claim to be different from LibLabCon that makes this resonate. Just like Major's Victorian values.
I'm actually personally not against taxing the sort of people who live in £2m houses, no matter how they came by them. What I'm concerned about is the huge potential change in the tax system that a Mansion Tax potentially represents. Why not add some more bands to Council Tax?
Because then Ed Balls wouldn't get his greedy hands on the cash.
Nor would the NHS where it is going
The NHS again. One could be forgiven for thinking it's become a religion.
On mansion tax, I noted that Balls said yesterday that anyone earning over £42000 would not be allowed to defer the tax to sale or death.
I'm just throwing this out there: equity release. Sell 10% of the £2m house and you've covered the mansion tax for a century.
Fundamentally there are two ways you owns a £2m house:
1. You are rich, and you buy a £2m house 2. You buy a cheaper house which rises in value
If it's the former you can afford the tax easily. If it's the latter you have profit tied up in the house which dwarfs your tax burden from it. Either sell the house and move somewhere smaller/cheaper or keep the house and equity release a small amount of it. If you choose to move you get to keep the vast windfall profit and don't even have to pay the mansion tax.
Selling is an option but 3 main issues with it:-
1. It would be better to have a tax on property based on sale values rather than on some notional value. That way you tax the actual profit. 2. Why would people buy a house at £2 mio when you're going to be landed with a significant extra tax? 3. Those who have lived in a house for decades are very emotionally attached to it. You're effectively telling people that they have to be forced out of a much loved family home at an elderly age in order to realise some money to pay a tax on a notional value and without giving them the option to defer the tax until death. This last category - hitting the elderly widow who wants to die in the house she lived in with her husband - seems to me especially mean-spirited.
Far better IMO to have a tax on sales - all sales or more council tax bands at higher levels. But basing taxes on property inflation when it is largely government policies and failures which have caused such property inflation is stupid.
If this mansion tax comes in I fully expect it within a few years to hit houses at much much lower levels, to hit pretty much every home in London and the South East and, before long, every home in the country. Labour are being dishonest in pretending that they can raise via this tax a couple of billion from a few Russian billionaires.
They havent claimed that though have they.
£1.2bn
Also those with income of less than £41k per annum dont pay
Mr. Owls, hmm. Isn't that unreasonable, given the money would only be spent on the English NHS, as Health is devolved in Wales and Scotland?
On F1: Texas is a bit hard to call. Some fast bits, some twisty bits. Could be nip and tuck between Red Bull and Williams. McLaren are on the up, and betting against Force India is something I'll have my eye on.
Sadly, there's a week and a half or so until the season resumes. For some reason there's a three week gap from Russia to America, then we have back-to-back races.
I'm actually personally not against taxing the sort of people who live in £2m houses, no matter how they came by them. What I'm concerned about is the huge potential change in the tax system that a Mansion Tax potentially represents. Why not add some more bands to Council Tax?
Because then Ed Balls wouldn't get his greedy hands on the cash.
Nor would the NHS where it is going
The NHS again. One could be forgiven for thinking it's become a religion.
It has one most people believe in and which currently has a £30bn financial black hole according to Sarah Woollaston.
Terribly unfair to ask someone to pay £250 per month to help with part of this.
If they cant afford that per month what the hell they doing in a mansion?
Manufactured faux outrage and smear by repetitive association. Didn't work against ukip before the euros in the con hq/guardian/bbc campaign and won't work now. As noted down thread no one gives a toss.
I'm actually personally not against taxing the sort of people who live in £2m houses, no matter how they came by them. What I'm concerned about is the huge potential change in the tax system that a Mansion Tax potentially represents. Why not add some more bands to Council Tax?
Because then Ed Balls wouldn't get his greedy hands on the cash.
Nor would the NHS where it is going
It is not going to be hypothecated tax so where the money ends up is not certain. The amount that is to be raised is pronounced at £1.5bn. However, as it has now been announced that the tax will be banded and for properties valued between 2 and 3 million it will amount to £3k per annum, that £1.5bn is looking a bit shaky.
Nonetheless, let as assume that all works as planned. what difference will it make to the NHS? At somewhat under 1% of the budget I think we can safely say, not much. In fact I would go far as to say bugger all. It terms of NHS spend £1.5bn is a rounding error, you could achieve more by putting in some serious managers and cost accountants to look at procurement.
The Mansion tax to fund the NHS is a political wheeze designed for political ends no more.
Hmmmm much as I am perturbed by EFDD latest recruit he isn't the first to cause the jewish Board of Deputies consternation and certainly he is by no means the closest.....
I believe ken Livingstone is still a member of the Labour Party isn't he?
Labour-supporting Jews in London have written a devastating private letter to the party leader, Ed Miliband, after a group of them including Jewish Labour councillors, Labour members of the Board of Deputies and Labour Friends of Israel met Ken this month to try to build bridges. Previous discussions, they said, had been "acrimonious" and this one doesn't sound any better.........
......Ken toward the end of the meeting stated that he did not expect the Jewish community to vote Labour as votes for the left are inversely proportional to wealth levels, and suggested that as the Jewish community is rich, we simply wouldn't vote for him.........
I am enjoying how the members of the Jewish Board of Deputies have become a part of the metropolitan liberal elite for daring to criticise UKIP's relationship with a Polish Nazi sympathiser. How dare they speak out in that way. It's PC gone mad. The only possible explanation is that they are hypocritical lefties.
Don't talk daft, Southam. I will say this though, the Jewish Board of Deputies are a group made up, of that old fashion phrase, 'English Worthies'. Self appointed throughout it's history, always nudging up to the levers of power and never ever elected; seeking only their own advancement. Nobody in the shrinking Anglo-Jewish world pays much attention to them, at all.
On mansion tax, I noted that Balls said yesterday that anyone earning over £42000 would not be allowed to defer the tax to sale or death.
Now I have no idea how many people earning just over that sum who bought their house decades ago and must now find ca. £2K p.a. to pay the mansion tax. But it's worth noting that at that level of income:-
1. They will be basic rate tax payers. Only a tiny proportion of their income will be subject to the 40p tax rate let alone anything higher. The optics of having a mansion tax paid by basic rate tax payers who are - in effect - being penalised for having lived in their homes a long time and inflation- are not good for Labour. It will increase the fear that this will very rapidly become a tax on all houses.
2. Finding an extra £2K p.a. to pay is not going to be easy. The tax could easily become a person's single biggest commitment.
It seems to me that Labour have made a silly mistake by their reference to the £42K threshold because it will allow others to say that Labour think anyone earning over this level is the sort of mega-rich mansion owner that people think of when talking about £2mio + houses.
I'm not a great fan of the MT as proposed because of the cliff edge, but it seems like people have lost a sense of perspective on what £2million actually buys you. It still buys you one hell of a home, even in a nice part of London.
'I'm not a great fan of the MT as proposed because of the cliff edge, but it seems like people have lost a sense of perspective on what £2million actually buys you. It still buys you one hell of a home, even in a nice part of London.'
Surely it's you that's lost perspective if you think a three bedroom terraced house is a mansion or indeed 'one hell of a home'
On mansion tax, I noted that Balls said yesterday that anyone earning over £42000 would not be allowed to defer the tax to sale or death.
Now I have no idea how many people earning just over that sum who bought their house decades ago and must now find ca. £2K p.a. to pay the mansion tax. But it's worth noting that at that level of income:-
1. They will be basic rate tax payers. Only a tiny proportion of their income will be subject to the 40p tax rate let alone anything higher. The optics of having a mansion tax paid by basic rate tax payers who are - in effect - being penalised for having lived in their homes a long time and inflation- are not good for Labour. It will increase the fear that this will very rapidly become a tax on all houses.
2. Finding an extra £2K p.a. to pay is not going to be easy. The tax could easily become a person's single biggest commitment.
It seems to me that Labour have made a silly mistake by their reference to the £42K threshold because it will allow others to say that Labour think anyone earning over this level is the sort of mega-rich mansion owner that people think of when talking about £2mio + houses.
I'm not a great fan of the MT as proposed because of the cliff edge, but it seems like people have lost a sense of perspective on what £2million actually buys you. It still buys you one hell of a home, even in a nice part of London.
It is not really a cliff edge because the tax will only be charged on the amount in excess of £2m not the full value.
Comments
Fundamentally there are two ways you owns a £2m house:
1. You are rich, and you buy a £2m house
2. You buy a cheaper house which rises in value
If it's the former you can afford the tax easily. If it's the latter you have profit tied up in the house which dwarfs your tax burden from it. Either sell the house and move somewhere smaller/cheaper or keep the house and equity release a small amount of it. If you choose to move you get to keep the vast windfall profit and don't even have to pay the mansion tax.
Although I know that a lot of people guilty of child abuse do still manage to escape prosecution I cannot go around attempting to be judge and jury myself in place of due process.
You sound like someone about to create a vigilante gang.
(I'd have a bit more belief in a so called 'Mansion Tax' if it the thresholds varied on geographic regions/local values)
If I could be bothered to look I am sure I would find MEPs belonging to other groupings in the European Parliament who have some some views or past conduct that many would regard as beyond the acceptable limits but nobody is going on about how Labour/Lib Dems/Conservatives are thereby tainted by the association. Furthermore didn't we go through all this with the Conservative Party being the villains of the piece just a couple of years ago? I seem to remember at least one poster on here, with a supporting chorus, going on and on about it.
Its the sort of issue that will cause some political anoraks to get their knickers in a twist and puff themselves up with righteous indignation but will pass by the average voter and even a goodly number of political anoraks.
Oh for a reforming Europhile who would sort the EU out and sweep away all the various bits of nonsense and offences against democracy. Where is that person hiding?
"KNP founder Janusz Korwin-Mikke was fined last month for using racist language at a debate, caused outrage with comments on the Holocaust and disagreeing with women's right to vote.
He said in 2007: "Women still should not have the right to vote. Just choose any political meeting at random and see how many women are present."
He also reportedly claimed that Hitler would be acquitted from court today as he had no idea that the Nazis were waging atrocities on Jewish people across Europe.
Mr Korwin-Mikke said: "Show me even one sentence of Hitler, that will attest to the fact that he knew about the extermination of the Jews. You will not find [it]."
Ukip’s new friend Iwaszkievicz himself defended his party leader, saying Janusz “did not say whether Hitler knew or did not know, only that there is no evidence for this”."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nigel-farage-strikes-alliance-with-farright-mep-who-joked-about-hitler-and-beating-women-9807995.html
I actually have no problem with it being held over beyond the next GE. In general, I think it is not helpful for sensitive inquiries to be held at politically crucial times. I am however bothered by what appears to be going on here.
If any of us were invited to head an Inquiry into possible wrongdoings by a string of suspects, one of whom was a personal acquaintance, we would surely say 'Thanks, but I can't do it because I know X.' It wouldn't imply X was guilty, nor even that we were incapable of being fair and objective. But it just wouldn't look right, and we would know that.
That doesn't seem to have occurred to this lady, or those that nominated her.
Smells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Korwin-Mikke
So now UKIP are responsible for not just the people they are affiliated with, but also the people THOSE people are affiliated with?
I look forward to applying this standard to the other UK parties.
1. It would be better to have a tax on property based on sale values rather than on some notional value. That way you tax the actual profit.
2. Why would people buy a house at £2 mio when you're going to be landed with a significant extra tax?
3. Those who have lived in a house for decades are very emotionally attached to it. You're effectively telling people that they have to be forced out of a much loved family home at an elderly age in order to realise some money to pay a tax on a notional value and without giving them the option to defer the tax until death. This last category - hitting the elderly widow who wants to die in the house she lived in with her husband - seems to me especially mean-spirited.
Far better IMO to have a tax on sales - all sales or more council tax bands at higher levels. But basing taxes on property inflation when it is largely government policies and failures which have caused such property inflation is stupid.
If this mansion tax comes in I fully expect it within a few years to hit houses at much much lower levels, to hit pretty much every home in London and the South East and, before long, every home in the country. Labour are being dishonest in pretending that they can raise via this tax a couple of billion from a few Russian billionaires.
This discussion was tedious and pointless enough the first time round, in 2009. But at least Tim tried to entertain with it.
Life's too short. See you on the next thread. Maybe.
Ukip’s new friend Iwaszkievicz himself defended his party leader, saying Janusz “did not say whether Hitler knew or did not know, only that there is no evidence for this”."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nigel-farage-strikes-alliance-with-farright-mep-who-joked-about-hitler-and-beating-women-9807995.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Inscrits
Any F1 tips due out by the way?
"He writes the most popular political blog in Poland"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Korwin-Mikke
Mike Smithson is in league with Holocaust deniers...
£1.2bn
Also those with income of less than £41k per annum dont pay
Stop making stuff up.
On F1: Texas is a bit hard to call. Some fast bits, some twisty bits. Could be nip and tuck between Red Bull and Williams. McLaren are on the up, and betting against Force India is something I'll have my eye on.
Sadly, there's a week and a half or so until the season resumes. For some reason there's a three week gap from Russia to America, then we have back-to-back races.
Terribly unfair to ask someone to pay £250 per month to help with part of this.
If they cant afford that per month what the hell they doing in a mansion?
Nonetheless, let as assume that all works as planned. what difference will it make to the NHS? At somewhat under 1% of the budget I think we can safely say, not much. In fact I would go far as to say bugger all. It terms of NHS spend £1.5bn is a rounding error, you could achieve more by putting in some serious managers and cost accountants to look at procurement.
The Mansion tax to fund the NHS is a political wheeze designed for political ends no more.
K&C - average 1.4m - 2 safe Tory seats
Westminster - average 970k - 1 safe Tory, 1 marginal (Westminster N)
Camden - 820k - 1 safe Labour, 1 marginal (Hampstead & K)
Hammersmith - 784k - 1 safe Tory, 1 marginal (Hammersmith)
Islington - 650k - 2 safe Lab
Richmond - 620k - 1 safe Tory, 1 safe LD
Wandsworth - 580k - 1 safe Tory, 2 marginals (Battersea, Tooting)
Hackney - 575k - 2 safe Lab
Southwark - 530k - 1 safe LD, 1 safe Labour
Lambeth - 520k - 2 safe Lab
Must admit pretty surprised that Hackney has higher house prices than Bromley! About 5 marginals that could be impacted by the tax.
I believe ken Livingstone is still a member of the Labour Party isn't he?
Labour-supporting Jews in London have written a devastating private letter to the party leader, Ed Miliband, after a group of them including Jewish Labour councillors, Labour members of the Board of Deputies and Labour Friends of Israel met Ken this month to try to build bridges. Previous discussions, they said, had been "acrimonious" and this one doesn't sound any better.........
......Ken toward the end of the meeting stated that he did not expect the Jewish community to vote Labour as votes for the left are inversely proportional to wealth levels, and suggested that as the Jewish community is rich, we simply wouldn't vote for him.........
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100145765/ken-livingstone-jews-wont-vote-for-me-because-they-are-rich/
And then of course there is the Libdems
David Ward
http://cifwatch.com/2013/11/29/david-ward-mp-jews-money-and-power/
And who could forget Baroness Tonge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Tonge,_Baroness_Tonge
And of course David Cameron fell foul of the same thing........
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/06/david-cameron-eu-alliance-questioned.
'I'm not a great fan of the MT as proposed because of the cliff edge, but it seems like people have lost a sense of perspective on what £2million actually buys you. It still buys you one hell of a home, even in a nice part of London.'
Surely it's you that's lost perspective if you think a three bedroom terraced house is a mansion or indeed 'one hell of a home'
It is not really a cliff edge because the tax will only be charged on the amount in excess of £2m not the full value.