So Grannies - gift your houses to your children using a fancy trust system and pay them a nominal rent.
Now exempt from the Mansion tax ?
Perhaps a local sales tax would be simpler to collect ?
Pay a proper market rent and you also get the house out of your estate for IHT purposes.
The key point in that Knight Frank survey - assuming their figures are correct and Labour do allow all these exemptions - is that the threshold will have to be very much lower if it is to collect the sums Labour say they want to raise.
So Grannies - gift your houses to your children using a fancy trust system and pay them a nominal rent.
Now exempt from the Mansion tax ?
Perhaps a local sales tax would be simpler to collect ?
Pay a proper market rent and you also get the house out of your estate for IHT purposes.
The key point in that Knight Frank survey - assuming their figures are correct and Labour do allow all these exemptions - is that the threshold will have to be very much lower if it is to collect the sums Labour say they want to raise.
It will never be implemented even if Labour win the GE - too costly and won't collect any money.
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't:
A tax which completely arbitrarily applies to a £3m property but not to two £1.5m properties makes zero sense no matter how you look at it.
Richard (& @chestnut and your poor person with a £1.5m mortgage).
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
If you live in a £2 mio house with a £1.9 mio mortgage you are not rich as your total housing wealth is £100K. You could have someone living in a £1 mio house a few streets away with no mortgage. That person is richer.
My guess is that he mansion tax will end up being a tax on pretty much all houses and will likely also end up as a wealth tax so that all wealth is taxed. And if that is the case a lot of people will find they will have to pay a proportion of the value of their house, pension (an increasingly important part of a person's wealth, particularly if they're lucky enough to have a final salary pension), savings, jewellery, furniture, cars etc to the state every year.
I think that is what some people fear and what others want - though they may be shy about saying so expressly.
Without labouring the point, if you have a £1.9m mortgage you are paying £8-9,000 per month = £100,000/year in post tax income = at least £170,000/year of pre-tax income before you start.
At an average of about 50% of income spent on Mortgages (so let's say you are on £350,000/year) that leaves you with enough disposable income to pay a few thousand a year.
But your overall point is well made - they start it at £2m then all of a sudden it is a subsidiary tax (in addition to Council Tax) on property reaching down to wherever Ed and Ed see fit when they wake up in the morning.
Mr. Pulpstar, lower BMI than 98% of comparable chaps in the country, 84% worldwide. Is worth mentioning my weight has, for reasons that are strange and mysterious, fallen recently.
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't:
.
Richard (& @chestnut and your poor person with a £1.5m mortgage).
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
If you live in a £2 mio house with a £1.9 mio mortgage you are not rich as your total housing wealth is £100K. You could have someone living in a £1 mio house a few streets away with no mortgage. That person is richer.
My guess is that he mansion tax will end up being a tax on pretty much all houses and will likely also end up as a wealth tax so that all wealth is taxed. And if that is the case a lot of people will find they will have to pay a proportion of the value of their house, pension (an increasingly important part of a person's wealth, particularly if they're lucky enough to have a final salary pension), savings, jewellery, furniture, cars etc to the state every year.
I think that is what some people fear and what others want - though they may be shy about saying so expressly.
Without labouring the point, if you have a £1.9m mortgage you are paying £8-9,000 per month = £100,000/year in post tax income = at least £170,000/year of pre-tax income before you start.
At an average of about 50% of income spent on Mortgages (so let's say you are on £350,000/year) that leaves you with enough disposable income to pay a few thousand a year.
But your overall point is well made - they start it at £2m then all of a sudden it is a subsidiary tax (in addition to Council Tax) on property reaching down to wherever Ed and Ed see fit when they wake up in the morning.
I know that if you have a £1.9 mortgage you are likely to have a big income but I do think it a nonsense to assess someone as rich on the basis of assets without taking into account their debts. And it would probably be more sensible to tax that income rather than using an arbitrary property tax and then try it justify backwards by pointing at the income of the person owning it.
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't:
.
Richard (& @chestnut and your poor person with a £1.5m mortgage).
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
If you live in a £2 mio house with a £1.9 mio mortgage you are not rich as your total housing wealth is £100K. You could have someone living in a £1 mio house a few streets away with no mortgage. That person is richer.
My guess is that he mansion tax will end up being a tax on pretty much all houses and will likely also end up as a wealth tax so that all wealth is taxed. And if that is the case a lot of people will find they will have to pay a proportion of the value of their house, pension (an increasingly important part of a person's wealth, particularly if they're lucky enough to have a final salary pension), savings, jewellery, furniture, cars etc to the state every year.
I think that is what some people fear and what others want - though they may be shy about saying so expressly.
Without labouring the point, if you have a £1.9m mortgage you are paying £8-9,000 per month = £100,000/year in post tax income = at least £170,000/year of pre-tax income before you start.
At an average of about 50% of income spent on Mortgages (so let's say you are on £350,000/year) that leaves you with enough disposable income to pay a few thousand a year.
But your overall point is well made - they start it at £2m then all of a sudden it is a subsidiary tax (in addition to Council Tax) on property reaching down to wherever Ed and Ed see fit when they wake up in the morning.
I know that if you have a £1.9 mortgage you are likely to have a big income but I do think it a nonsense to assess someone as rich on the basis of assets without taking into account their debts. And it would probably be more sensible to tax that income rather than using an arbitrary property tax and then try it justify backwards by pointing at the income of the person owning it.
'It is clear from our investigation of official data that a £2m threshold is too high to deliver a tax take of £1.7bn, let alone £2bn. In table 1 we provide an analysis which points towards a threshold of £1.5m in order to reach the Liberal Democrats £1.7bn target, and £1.25m to reach Labour’s £2bn target.'
So by the mid-term of a Labour government houses valued at £1.25m get clobbered by the mansion tax.
According to Guido... Polly Toynbee has written an article today decrying the appalling greed of those with property wealth... she has three very large homes and is a millionaress. What is that word..begins with an H....
Mr. Pulpstar, lower BMI than 98% of comparable chaps in the country, 84% worldwide. Is worth mentioning my weight has, for reasons that are strange and mysterious, fallen recently.
Apparently I'm most like someone from Eritrea.
Lard sandwiches for you !
I'm like the average American (28 BMI), but I've dropped around 4 kilos since the Ilkley meet I think.
Socialism working its usual magic in France; "Output in France's private sector shrank for the seventh month in a row in November, according to the Markit Purchasing Managers' Index. French private sector companies reported another drop in outstanding business in November. "
At an average of about 50% of income spent on Mortgages
o_O ! Crikey.
Pulled the 50% from the first result on Google but anything lower = more money to pay the tax!!
There are other bills to pay: council tax, insurance, electricity, gas, water, telephones, transport costs, food. Not on the breadline, obviously. But the mortgage is not the only thing which has to be paid out of income. Look at all the items which the FCA now requires mortgagors to inquire about before someone is offered a mortgage.
Mr. Pulpstar, au contraire, *I* am an environmentally sustainable, low-cost human being.
On a serious note, my weight's always done more or less what it liked. I did, some years ago, try hard to gain weight by eating more than I really wanted to, but it made absolutely no difference. My metabolic rate must be like a hamster on speed.
Quite agree on BMI, incidentally. It's a bloody ridiculous measure.
If Labour gets in and implements this, would you expect Labour politicians affected by it to pay the tax out of their own pockets, or would you consider it legitimate for them to designate their mansion-taxable property their second home in order to be able to reclaim the tax through their Westminster expenses?
I'd expect them to pay up, but as I understand it, the current expenses regime only pays rent etc. anyway, and doesn't help with house ownership (which seems right to me).
In reply to Richard N: the argument for the tax rather than variants that you might suggest is that it's very simple to administer and hard to avoid. There are plenty of existing taxes which fail to meet those criteria and are frankly odd in their application, such as stamp duty with its cliff edge effect on the whole value.
If Labour gets in and implements this, would you expect Labour politicians affected by it to pay the tax out of their own pockets, or would you consider it legitimate for them to designate their mansion-taxable property their second home in order to be able to reclaim the tax through their Westminster expenses?
I'd expect them to pay up, but as I understand it, the current expenses regime only pays rent etc. anyway, and doesn't help with house ownership (which seems right to me).
In reply to Richard N: the argument for the tax rather than variants that you might suggest is that it's very simple to administer and hard to avoid. There are plenty of existing taxes which fail to meet those criteria and are frankly odd in their application, such as stamp duty with its cliff edge effect on the whole value.
Doesn't your second point also apply equally to council tax? I.e. it's simply to administer and hard to avoid. Why not then add bands at to top end?
On your first point, good of you to say so but I'm sure I read somewhere that a mansion tax like council tax would be reclaimable by MPs as an expense.
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
What about people with baccalaureates?
Would it be that hard to determine whether the baccalaureate had enough Maths content of a sufficient level to be equivalent to a GCSE/A-level?
If so, probably not too hard to organise entry into a GCSE Maths exam if one wanted to vote.
Why should maths be prioritised over history? The latter probably better informs you for making epochal political decisions.
Because I studied Maths at University and not History, of course.
Also, in terms of setting some minimum competency bar on being a politician/voter I think that it is knowledge of Mathematics, and Statistics in particular, that is most lacking. The knowledge of history among current members of the Commons is very likely to be greater than the knowledge of Mathematics.
It's not that remarkable that a politician like Hague has been a member of the Cabinet, and has made a reportedly useful contribution to popular history with his biographies. If a recent member of the Cabinet had made a similar contribution to popular mathematics then that would be altogether more surprising.
So one seeks to address the skills and competencies that are lacking, rather than those that are not. And, really, a GCSE/A-level in Maths should be seen as a very low bar, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of the electorate/House would fall short.
At an average of about 50% of income spent on Mortgages
o_O ! Crikey.
Pulled the 50% from the first result on Google but anything lower = more money to pay the tax!!
There are other bills to pay: council tax, insurance, electricity, gas, water, telephones, transport costs, food. Not on the breadline, obviously. But the mortgage is not the only thing which has to be paid out of income. Look at all the items which the FCA now requires mortgagors to inquire about before someone is offered a mortgage.
Why we are having this discussion when we both agree with each other and it is adding nothing to anyone's sum of knowledge god only knows but...
...if you are paying £8k per month in mortgage payments then you have (on average according to Google, which might be making it up but it is conservative) a further £8k per month to spend on gas, water, electricity, fortnums hampers, haylage, HF 1211 S Honda Ride On Mowers, bread, soup (on Thursdays), semi-skimmed milk, Lafite '61, side by side 12-bores, telephones, transport costs, Patey hats, margarine...
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
What about people with baccalaureates?
Would it be that hard to determine whether the baccalaureate had enough Maths content of a sufficient level to be equivalent to a GCSE/A-level?
If so, probably not too hard to organise entry into a GCSE Maths exam if one wanted to vote.
Why should maths be prioritised over history? The latter probably better informs you for making epochal political decisions.
Because I studied Maths at University and not History, of course.
Also, in terms of setting some minimum competency bar on being a politician/voter I think that it is knowledge of Mathematics, and Statistics in particular, that is most lacking. The knowledge of history among current members of the Commons is very likely to be greater than the knowledge of Mathematics.
It's not that remarkable that a politician like Hague has been a member of the Cabinet, and has made a reportedly useful contribution to popular history with his biographies. If a recent member of the Cabinet had made a similar contribution to popular mathematics then that would be altogether more surprising.
So one seeks to address the skills and competencies that are lacking, rather than those that are not. And, really, a GCSE/A-level in Maths should be seen as a very low bar, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of the electorate/House would fall short.
The lack of understanding of probability as demonstrated by the two coin flip question amongst MPs was quite startling.
There should be at least one more mathematician in the House by next may at any rate.
On your first point, good of you to say so but I'm sure I read somewhere that a mansion tax like council tax would be reclaimable by MPs as an expense.
'Polly Toynbee has written an article today decrying the appalling greed of those with property wealth... she has three very large homes and is a millionaress. What is that word..begins with an H....'
And sends her kids to private schools,a truly devout socialist.
Question: What is the Office of Budget Responsibility doing, exactly? Why has it been so ineffective? Thanks to the government introducing unaffordable tax cuts and benefit increases, we have record deficits - in spite of the huge rise in VAT. Why isn't the OBR speaking out about this?
Question: What is the Office of Budget Responsibility doing, exactly? Why has it been so ineffective? Thanks to the government introducing unaffordable tax cuts and benefit increases, we have record deficits. Where is the OBR in this?
I believe its telling people we have unaffordable tax cuts and deficits. It can't change anything, its just there to stop people brushing the figures under the rug. If you look on their homepage at the moment their highlighted article is telling everyone that the deficit increased in the first half the year, so working as designed imo.
Mr. PB, the OBR's there to objectively assess the impact of policies and the current economic picture, to prevent chancellors from forecasting unrealistic tosh. It's not the OBR's role to try and recommend policies or criticise/praise politicians.
'Polly Toynbee has written an article today decrying the appalling greed of those with property wealth... she has three very large homes and is a millionaress. What is that word..begins with an H....'
And sends her kids to private schools,a truly devout socialist.
People like Toynbee and Miliband make arguments for Socialism very well - but not in the way that they intend.
'Polly Toynbee has written an article today decrying the appalling greed of those with property wealth... she has three very large homes and is a millionaress. What is that word..begins with an H....'
And sends her kids to private schools,a truly devout socialist.
Toynbee is simply giving her readers what they want to hear, it's how she made her fortune. The idea that she is in any way sincere in her stated beliefs is laughable.
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
What about people with baccalaureates?
Would it be that hard to determine whether the baccalaureate had enough Maths content of a sufficient level to be equivalent to a GCSE/A-level?
If so, probably not too hard to organise entry into a GCSE Maths exam if one wanted to vote.
Why should maths be prioritised over history? The latter probably better informs you for making epochal political decisions.
Because I studied Maths at University and not History, of course.
Also, in terms of setting some minimum competency bar on being a politician/voter I think that it is knowledge of Mathematics, and Statistics in particular, that is most lacking. The knowledge of history among current members of the Commons is very likely to be greater than the knowledge of Mathematics.
It's not that remarkable that a politician like Hague has been a member of the Cabinet, and has made a reportedly useful contribution to popular history with his biographies. If a recent member of the Cabinet had made a similar contribution to popular mathematics then that would be altogether more surprising.
So one seeks to address the skills and competencies that are lacking, rather than those that are not. And, really, a GCSE/A-level in Maths should be seen as a very low bar, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of the electorate/House would fall short.
Mr OblitusSumMe, you make an extremely good point. It's notable that Mrs Thatcher, a chemistry graduate was advised later to become a barrister "if she wanted a career in politics" as was Archy Kirkwood, now Lord Kirkwood, who's first degree from Pharmacy.
It would be interesting to know how many holders of science degrees sit in the Commons, compared to those with Arts or Politics ones.
Mr. PB, the OBR's there to objectively assess the impact of policies and the current economic picture, to prevent chancellors from forecasting unrealistic tosh. It's not the OBR's role to try and recommend policies or criticise/praise politicians.
The OBR forecasts from 2010 bear an uncanny resemblance to unrealistic tosh, though.
Given the uncertainties I'd like to see the OBR publish best-case and worst-case scenarios for the public finances, and I'd then be worried if the outturn failed to lie within those bounds. Perhaps they already do this, but no-one seems to pay any attention to it if they do.
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
What about people with baccalaureates?
Would it be that hard to determine whether the baccalaureate had enough Maths content of a sufficient level to be equivalent to a GCSE/A-level?
If so, probably not too hard to organise entry into a GCSE Maths exam if one wanted to vote.
Why should maths be prioritised over history? The latter probably better informs you for making epochal political decisions.
Because I studied Maths at University and not History, of course.
I think that it is knowledge of Mathematics, and Statistics in particular, that is most lacking. The knowledge of history among current members of the Commons is very likely to be greater than the knowledge of Mathematics.
It's not that remarkable that a politician like Hague has been a member of the Cabinet, and has made a reportedly useful contribution to popular history with his biographies. If a recent member of the Cabinet had made a similar contribution to popular mathematics then that would be altogether more surprising.
So one seeks to address the skills and competencies that are lacking, rather than those that are not. And, really, a GCSE/A-level in Maths should be seen as a very low bar, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of the electorate/House would fall short.
Mr OblitusSumMe, you make an extremely good point. It's notable that Mrs Thatcher, a chemistry graduate was advised later to become a barrister "if she wanted a career in politics" as was Archy Kirkwood, now Lord Kirkwood, who's first degree from Pharmacy.
It would be interesting to know how many holders of science degrees sit in the Commons, compared to those with Arts or Politics ones.
Mr. PB, the OBR's there to objectively assess the impact of policies and the current economic picture, to prevent chancellors from forecasting unrealistic tosh. It's not the OBR's role to try and recommend policies or criticise/praise politicians.
So you're saying that it does nothing to encourage "Budget Responsibility"? So why isn't it part of the Office of the National Statistics?
Or why does it need to be part of the government at all? Surely the free market is better at analysing fiscal policy than a centralised government bureaucracy with no incentive to be accurate?
My prediction: you'll hear much more about them when there's a Labour government. I strongly suspect the sole intention was to give the right-wing press a quasi-official way of pushing the narrative of the left being "fiscally irresponsible", and remaining conspicuously silent otherwise.
I think it is a mistake for the Right to jump to the defence of very wealthy individuals who are well capable and all too often do (see Myleene) defend their positions very robustly. There is an legitimate argument to be made (and I'm no socialist) that wealth is undertaxed and income overtaxed in this country.
Several physicians who must have a fair degree of science in their background, although a close relative of mine is a GP, gets science but has no mechanical sympathy whatsoever, not a big loss to the world of engineering ;-)
I think it is a mistake for the Right to jump to the defence of very wealthy individuals who are well capable and all too often do (see Myleene) defend their positions very robustly. There is an legitimate argument to be made (and I'm no socialist) that wealth is undertaxed and income overtaxed in this country.
I think it is a mistake for the Right to jump to the defence of very wealthy individuals who are well capable and all too often do (see Myleene) defend their positions very robustly. There is an legitimate argument to be made (and I'm no socialist) that wealth is undertaxed and income overtaxed in this country.
It's a Property tax, cleverly wrapped up in an Envy one. Wins a few votes until it dawns on the dimmer that today's mansion, will be tomorrow's semi and apartment. The level will creep ever lower until everyone 'lucky' enough to own a home gets hit with another bill.
It would of course be good for politics to have more mathematicians. However, would it be good for the mathematicians themselves?
The record of mathematicians in politics is not very creditable. Isaac Newton was a thoroughly dishonest and quarrelsome Master of the Mint. Paul Painleve was an ineffectual President of France.
Even at a more local level, the two mathematicians in New Labour -- Anne Campbell and Nick Palmer -- were unfortunately only to keen to vote very strongly for the Iraq War and very strongly against an investigation into it.
I can only think of Andrei Sakharov as a counter-example of someone whose political career is at least as important as his mathematical one.
It's a Property tax, cleverly wrapped up in an Envy one. Wins a few votes until it dawns on the dimmer that today's mansion, will be tomorrow's semi and apartment. The level will creep ever lower until everyone 'lucky' enough to own a home gets hit with another bill.
There's no point in pretending otherwise.
It is as right, fair and just as the Window Tax...
As Ms Klass so succinctly put it, you can't just point at stuff and tax it.
Jimmy Carr making the same is somehow quite entitled to dodge tax because he's providing a public good
People actually buy his DVDs ?!
Do the maths -- annual tour plays to half a million people -- ticket sales split between theatre and comic (no support acts; no dancers or musicians) -- say comic gets £10 to £20 per ticket. Ignore teeshirt sales.
Then film the last date and sell the DVD at Christmas.
"say comic gets £10 to £20 per ticket."
Surely Jimmy Carr Ltd or some such should get the revenue proceeds. To have it go straight into his personal bank account would be the very height of idiocy.
The tax fiddles relate to how the money is got out of the company. The company has to pay corporation tax on its profits plus employers' NI on salaries paid. You can reduce the profit by taking it all out as salary but then the recipient has to pay PAYE. You can reduce PAYE by taking this profit out as dividends but then you still have the corporation tax to pay.
The schemes the various shouty lefties were pursuing were ones whereby they could extract the money from their companies or other vehicles and pay pretty much no tax at all.
That sounds sensible to me. Wouldn't you agree with the principle?
Let's say there were no taxes in your town, and also no sewers, or only sewers in the rich people's houses. That would make the town very smelly and unsanitary, so it would clearly be in everybody's interests for everyone to chip in and get some sewers built.
This is presupposing that he wanted more tax taken so that more could be spent. Not so. In fact what he wanted appeared to be for other people's incomes to be reduced, as an end in itself. He could perfectly well have made himself more equal than others by giving his own tax cut back to the taxman, or even just giving it away. This was not the idea; the idea was for people he disliked to be impoverished by the state.
It would have been a satisfactory outcome for their money to be taken away as cash, piled up in a car park, soaked in petrol and the notes burnt.
It was not and rarely is about some public good. Colossal debt, an overstaffed and over-remunerated public sector and a benefits culture are not public goods, for example. Public good can only be delivered by expanding private wealth so that there is something to redistribute in the first place and a better mechanism than the state for doing so.
I think it is a mistake for the Right to jump to the defence of very wealthy individuals who are well capable and all too often do (see Myleene) defend their positions very robustly. There is an legitimate argument to be made (and I'm no socialist) that wealth is undertaxed and income overtaxed in this country.
It's a Property tax, cleverly wrapped up in an Envy one. Wins a few votes until it dawns on the dimmer that today's mansion, will be tomorrow's semi and apartment. The level will creep ever lower until everyone 'lucky' enough to own a home gets hit with another bill.
There's no point in pretending otherwise.
It's a wealth tax (in embryo) cleverly disguised as a tax on property (of the rich). If it works it will end up being a wealth tax on everyone.
This is presupposing that he wanted more tax taken so that more could be spent. Not so. In fact what he wanted appeared to be for other people's incomes to be reduced, as an end in itself.
I don't know this person but out of interest what was the conversation you had that made you reach that conclusion?
Surely as house values are so unequal in the UK, A £2m house in London may be a £250K one in the North-East or even Doncaster and both should be taxed accordingly.
Surely he cannot be both uncounselled and ill-advised? Even a political party would surely struggle to both not give advice and advise poorly at the same time.
Bravo! PB pedantry at its inimitable best.
You give me far too much credit. If I have pedanted better than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of extremely pedantic giants.
PB is less good at developing one's skills at tortured paraphrasing and metaphors though.
"Unready" as in "Ethelred the unready" is a mistranslation of OE unraed meaning badly advised or not advised. The writer is therefore actually presenting alternative glosses of "unready" rather than contradicting himself.
I am aware of the origins of 'Unready' to mean badly advised, and so I can see how in the piece referenced (referring in Ed M being 'Unready, uncounselled and ill-advised')one could argue Unready and ill-advised are being used in the sense of providing synonyms. I would however contest that it requires an overly broad definition of 'pooly advised' to apply to 'Uncounselled', which is just no advice, so I would say that cannot be a synonym for Unready in the ancient sense and thus there is still a contradiction unless Ishamael is indeed correct that 'Unready' meant 'not advised' as well, in which case I would be honour bound to withdraw my pedantic criticism.
This is important stuff here.
On topic, I find it hard to take issue with this piece. I dislike FPTP, but the same issues with our system that may be magnified further in 2015 were present in 2011and the people spoke and didn't care about those issues.
As it gets easier for people to move businesses around - it's actually worse than Carswell says because the businesses of the future may effectively be computer viruses with no physical location anywhere - more tax is going to have to go on stuff like land and property that you can't move.
In reply to Richard N: the argument for the tax rather than variants that you might suggest is that it's very simple to administer and hard to avoid. There are plenty of existing taxes which fail to meet those criteria and are frankly odd in their application, such as stamp duty with its cliff edge effect on the whole value.
That's a very weak argument. Any tax on physical property, such as extending Council tax bands, would be equally hard to avoid, but would be more sane and actually raise more revenue and be more fair, because you've be taxing a wider base of 'rich' people. And, yes, it is true that many existing taxes have their illogicalities, but that's hardly an argument for introducing a new set of ludicrous anomalies.
Here's a suggestion. I know it will seem alien, given your New Labour heritage, but if you are going to all the trouble of creating an entirely new tax starting from a blank sheet of paper, why not try to come up with something sensible?
Otherwise, it just looks like a silly gimmick. Perhaps that is because it is a silly gimmick.
"So Miliband wants to remove the review of the Barnett formula and the West Lothian question. Raab is unimpressed, telling Coffee House:
‘Ed Miliband is personally forcing a vote to try and veto any progress on English votes and gag even a discussion of the implications of Barnett. It is a gaping opportunity to defeat him, and highlight how committed he is to selling out the English.’"
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't: .
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
My guess is that he mansion tax will end up being a tax on pretty much all houses and will likely also end up as a wealth tax so that all wealth is taxed. And if that is the case a lot of people will find they will have to pay a proportion of the value of their house, pension (an increasingly important part of a person's wealth, particularly if they're lucky enough to have a final salary pension), savings, jewellery, furniture, cars etc to the state every year.
I think that is what some people fear and what others want - though they may be shy about saying so expressly.
I think we'll find that public sector final salary pensions will be excluded for precisely the same reason it's only proposed to attack houses.
So Grannies - gift your houses to your children using a fancy trust system and pay them a nominal rent.
Now exempt from the Mansion tax ?
Perhaps a local sales tax would be simpler to collect ?
And it would probably be more sensible to tax that income rather than using an arbitrary property tax and then try it justify backwards by pointing at the income of the person owning it.
If the argument for a property expropriation tax is that it's justified by the income of the victim, then the argument actually being made is for higher income tax. The same person could avoid the tax by spending it on classic cars. Why do Labour hate people with £2 million of classic cars less than they hate people with one £2 million house? Is it guilt because it's Labour's fault houses are so expensive?
Incidentally I do not understand the argument that the £2 million will be based on present market value. All that need be done is for Labour to declare that a house is worth £2.5 million for envy tax purposes. The fact that you'd get £500k for it if you sold it is neither here nor there. We do this already with council tax where we say that a house is worth £90k for council tax purposes and is therefore band E.
This is presupposing that he wanted more tax taken so that more could be spent. Not so. In fact what he wanted appeared to be for other people's incomes to be reduced, as an end in itself.
I don't know this person but out of interest what was the conversation you had that made you reach that conclusion?
He was preoccupied with inequality and thought it disgraceful that he earned what he did. I never heard him complain about the level of state spending.
If Labour gets in and implements this, would you expect Labour politicians affected by it to pay the tax out of their own pockets, or would you consider it legitimate for them to designate their mansion-taxable property their second home in order to be able to reclaim the tax through their Westminster expenses?
I'd expect them to pay up, but as I understand it, the current expenses regime only pays rent etc. anyway, and doesn't help with house ownership (which seems right to me).
In reply to Richard N: the argument for the tax rather than variants that you might suggest is that it's very simple to administer and hard to avoid. There are plenty of existing taxes which fail to meet those criteria and are frankly odd in their application, such as stamp duty with its cliff edge effect on the whole value.
So you'd condemn a Labour MP who claimed the tax back through his expenses, would you?
I think property is undertaxed and if we need to raise tax then it should be a form of property tax. However why the current rates bands cannot be extended rather than faff around with this mansion tax I don't know .Is it because Labour feel they will get more class war votes by highlighting it this way more?
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't: .
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
My guess is that he mansion tax will end up being a tax on pretty much all houses and will likely also end up as a wealth tax so that all wealth is taxed. And if that is the case a lot of people will find they will have to pay a proportion of the value of their house, pension (an increasingly important part of a person's wealth, particularly if they're lucky enough to have a final salary pension), savings, jewellery, furniture, cars etc to the state every year.
I think that is what some people fear and what others want - though they may be shy about saying so expressly.
I think we'll find that public sector final salary pensions will be excluded for precisely the same reason it's only proposed to attack houses.
And to do so would be hugely unfair, given how valuable such pensions are. They are the equivalent of a very substantial pot of savings or a nice house. Why should they be exempt? Those who don't have such pensions view their houses as their pension or their care home fees.
Labour always claim that what they propose is "fair". And yet they manage to do things in ways which are not fair at all, quite the opposite very often e.g. taxing a person with one £2 mio home but not someone (an MP, say) with lots of homes worth £950K each.
I think it is a mistake for the Right to jump to the defence of very wealthy individuals who are well capable and all too often do (see Myleene) defend their positions very robustly. There is an legitimate argument to be made (and I'm no socialist) that wealth is undertaxed and income overtaxed in this country.
It's a Property tax, cleverly wrapped up in an Envy one. Wins a few votes until it dawns on the dimmer that today's mansion, will be tomorrow's semi and apartment. The level will creep ever lower until everyone 'lucky' enough to own a home gets hit with another bill.
There's no point in pretending otherwise.
Well said, sums it up in a nut shell. - just like every other tax that was brought in as a 'temporary' measure or aimed at targeting the unlucky few.
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
What about people with baccalaureates?
Would it be that hard to determine whether the baccalaureate had enough Maths content of a sufficient level to be equivalent to a GCSE/A-level?
If so, probably not too hard to organise entry into a GCSE Maths exam if one wanted to vote.
Why should maths be prioritised over history? The latter probably better informs you for making epochal political decisions.
Because I studied Maths at University and not History, of course.
So one seeks to address the skills and competencies that are lacking, rather than those that are not. And, really, a GCSE/A-level in Maths should be seen as a very low bar, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of the electorate/House would fall short.
Mr OblitusSumMe, you make an extremely good point. It's notable that Mrs Thatcher, a chemistry graduate was advised later to become a barrister "if she wanted a career in politics" as was Archy Kirkwood, now Lord Kirkwood, who's first degree from Pharmacy.
It would be interesting to know how many holders of science degrees sit in the Commons, compared to those with Arts or Politics ones.
Not sure where Huppert gets that from. A total of 26 MPs have science and technology degrees and a further 15 environmental and geography degrees.
Edit - I see the Indie is claiming that to be a scientist you have to have a PhD. I guess there are a few eminent scientists who might take issue with that.
As it gets easier for people to move businesses around - it's actually worse than Carswell says because the businesses of the future may effectively be computer viruses with no physical location anywhere - more tax is going to have to go on stuff like land and property that you can't move.
Although if the taxes on immovables get too large people will start moving themselves to more agreeable locations - ultimately governments are going to have to spend less because their ability to compel unrealistic amounts of tax is fading in the teeth of globalisation.
I think property is undertaxed and if we need to raise tax then it should be a form of property tax. However why the current rates bands cannot be extended rather than faff around with this mansion tax I don't know .Is it because Labour feel they will get more class war votes by highlighting it this way more?
So you don't agree that tax should be based on ability to pay?
I think property is undertaxed and if we need to raise tax then it should be a form of property tax. However why the current rates bands cannot be extended rather than faff around with this mansion tax I don't know .Is it because Labour feel they will get more class war votes by highlighting it this way more?
I think that there are 2 reasons why they're doing it this way:-
1. Council tax goes to councils so they'd have to argue with councils about how to allocate any additional revenue plus only a few councils would get any extra revenue. 2. They want to highlight the NHS (which they see as a strength) and also be able to show how they're going to pay for it. The fact that they can present it as a tax on rich bankers / Russian billionaires paying silly money for houses in London is a bonus and, indeed, everyone agrees that silly money is being paid for property in London.
Beyond that I don't think any real thought has gone into it at all, which is part of the problem.
The Labour policy of a mansion tax is one that they have nicked from the Lib Dems.
Meanwhile, having thought about it longer, the Lib Dems are now proposing additional Council Tax bands, rather than a separate mansion tax per se. This has the benefit in that it removes the risk of lowering the threshold of £2m.
In addition the coalition government has introduced ATED (an annual tax on residential properties held by corporates) initially at £2m threshold based on valuation bands. This is due to reduce to £1m from 2015 and then £500k. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-ated-statistics provides more details relating to ATED receipts in the year to April 2014.
Is it because Labour feel they will get more class war votes by highlighting it this way more?
Could be! But it might also be because they hoped it would look attractive to the LDs as a possible coalition partner, since they used to have the same policy. Ironically the LDs have more or less dropped the policy now, but Labour have too much of their wafer thin credibility invested in it to back away now.
As it gets easier for people to move businesses around - it's actually worse than Carswell says because the businesses of the future may effectively be computer viruses with no physical location anywhere - more tax is going to have to go on stuff like land and property that you can't move.
Although if the taxes on immovables get too large people will start moving themselves to more agreeable locations - ultimately governments are going to have to spend less because their ability to compel unrealistic amounts of tax is fading in the teeth of globalisation.
This is true, but one thing it's not true of right now is top-end London property, which makes this a really good tax, provided they don't overdo it.
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't: .
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
My guess is that he mansion tax will end up being a tax on pretty much all houses and will likely also end up as a wealth tax so that all wealth is taxed. And if that is the case a lot of people will find they will have to pay a proportion of the value of their house, pension (an increasingly important part of a person's wealth, particularly if they're lucky enough to have a final salary pension), savings, jewellery, furniture, cars etc to the state every year.
I think that is what some people fear and what others want - though they may be shy about saying so expressly.
I think we'll find that public sector final salary pensions will be excluded for precisely the same reason it's only proposed to attack houses.
And to do so would be hugely unfair, given how valuable such pensions are. They are the equivalent of a very substantial pot of savings or a nice house. Why should they be exempt? Those who don't have such pensions view their houses as their pension or their care home fees.
Labour always claim that what they propose is "fair". And yet they manage to do things in ways which are not fair at all, quite the opposite very often e.g. taxing a person with one £2 mio home but not someone (an MP, say) with lots of homes worth £950K each.
Quite, but what would happen is that the public sector retiree with a £45k pension will face no tax bill whereas the private sector retiree with a pension pot that provides a £45k pension will be robbed of it. It's what Labour does.
As it gets easier for people to move businesses around - it's actually worse than Carswell says because the businesses of the future may effectively be computer viruses with no physical location anywhere - more tax is going to have to go on stuff like land and property that you can't move.
The title is faulty and disingeneous: the Conservatives could have easily "fixed" the deficit using their 2.5% VAT increase, but they decided to be fiscally irresponsible and use that revenue to cut taxes and increase benefits instead.
And the reason the wealtrhy can jump jurisdictions is because that's the end-game of liberal economics, with free markets and the free movement of capital, policies that presumably Carswell supports. The right has entrenched a system where it's inherently the case. This is not a new idea to people on the left.
He's essentially saying "We've created a system where people can avoid tax... so we have to do with less tax". Which is a ridiculous circular argument.
Oh, and he fails to notice that intellectual property is a government-granted monopoly and not something inherent. That should give governments some leverage when collecting taxes.
If Labour gets in and implements this, would you expect Labour politicians affected by it to pay the tax out of their own pockets, or would you consider it legitimate for them to designate their mansion-taxable property their second home in order to be able to reclaim the tax through their Westminster expenses?
I'd expect them to pay up, but as I understand it, the current expenses regime only pays rent etc. anyway, and doesn't help with house ownership (which seems right to me).
In reply to Richard N: the argument for the tax rather than variants that you might suggest is that it's very simple to administer and hard to avoid. There are plenty of existing taxes which fail to meet those criteria and are frankly odd in their application, such as stamp duty with its cliff edge effect on the whole value.
So you'd condemn a Labour MP who claimed the tax back through his expenses, would you?
MPs should be forbidden from claiming any tax back on expenses. Iniquitous for our lawmakers to exempt themselves from paying the taxes they impose on the rest of us. So no claiming of council tax on expenses or mansion tax or anything else. Let them pay tax like the rest of us.
As it gets easier for people to move businesses around - it's actually worse than Carswell says because the businesses of the future may effectively be computer viruses with no physical location anywhere - more tax is going to have to go on stuff like land and property that you can't move.
The Telegraph need to update their urls for Mr Carswell.
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't: .
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
My guess is that he mansion tax will end up being a tax on pretty much all houses and will likely also end up as a wealth tax so that all wealth is taxed. And if that is the case a lot of people will find they will have to pay a proportion of the value of their house, pension (an increasingly important part of a person's wealth, particularly if they're lucky enough to have a final salary pension), savings, jewellery, furniture, cars etc to the state every year.
I think that is what some people fear and what others want - though they may be shy about saying so expressly.
I think we'll find that public sector final salary pensions will be excluded for precisely the same reason it's only proposed to attack houses.
And to do so would be hugely unfair, given how valuable such pensions are. They are the equivalent of a very substantial pot of savings or a nice house. Why should they be exempt? Those who don't have such pensions view their houses as their pension or their care home fees.
Labour always claim that what they propose is "fair". And yet they manage to do things in ways which are not fair at all, quite the opposite very often e.g. taxing a person with one £2 mio home but not someone (an MP, say) with lots of homes worth £950K each.
Quite, but what would happen is that the public sector retiree with a £45k pension will face no tax bill whereas the private sector retiree with a pension pot that provides a £45k pension will be robbed of it. It's what Labour does.
And it's why Labour's claim to be the party of fairness is so much phooey.
"He's essentially saying "We've created a system where people can avoid tax... so we have to do with less tax". Which is a ridiculous circular argument."
Doesn't the Left say the same? "We've created a system where the state has spent too much.....so to keep on spending we have to tax you more." That too is a ridiculously circular argument.
"So Miliband wants to remove the review of the Barnett formula and the West Lothian question. Raab is unimpressed, telling Coffee House:
‘Ed Miliband is personally forcing a vote to try and veto any progress on English votes and gag even a discussion of the implications of Barnett. It is a gaping opportunity to defeat him, and highlight how committed he is to selling out the English.’"
So in addition to Ed Miliband wanting to sell out to this country to a European superstate, increasingly dilute this the native culture with continuing mass immigration, adding in racist quotas against white people, not counting the English as a nation is his "Senate of the Nations", he won't let us debate the English subsidy to Scotland.
As it gets easier for people to move businesses around - it's actually worse than Carswell says because the businesses of the future may effectively be computer viruses with no physical location anywhere - more tax is going to have to go on stuff like land and property that you can't move.
And the reason the wealtrhy can jump jurisdictions is because that's the end-game of liberal economics, with free markets and the free movement of capital, policies that presumably Carswell supports. The right has entrenched a system where it's inherently the case. This is not a new idea to people on the left.
He's essentially saying "We've created a system where people can avoid tax... so we have to do with less tax". Which is a ridiculous circular argument.
Oh, and he fails to notice that intellectual property is a government-granted monopoly and not something inherent. That should give governments some leverage when collecting taxes.
That's a fair point, although 1) I don't see anyone in British politics articulating a convincing alternative to free markets and free movement of capital. 2) A lot of the change has been tech not politics. If anything the politics lags behind the tech.
Although if the taxes on immovables get too large people will start moving themselves to more agreeable locations - ultimately governments are going to have to spend less because their ability to compel unrealistic amounts of tax is fading in the teeth of globalisation.
A race to the floor isn't inherent in "globalisation". Countries could introduce tariffs, restrict movement and movement of capital to jurisdictions that operate as tax havens.
Naturally, though, capitalist ideologues don't like that idea. Indeed, the right fundamentally believe in a race to the floor where the rich have all the power. They fundamnetally don't see it as a problem that needs to be solved.
As it gets easier for people to move businesses around - it's actually worse than Carswell says because the businesses of the future may effectively be computer viruses with no physical location anywhere - more tax is going to have to go on stuff like land and property that you can't move.
And the reason the wealtrhy can jump jurisdictions is because that's the end-game of liberal economics, with free markets and the free movement of capital, policies that presumably Carswell supports. The right has entrenched a system where it's inherently the case. This is not a new idea to people on the left.
He's essentially saying "We've created a system where people can avoid tax... so we have to do with less tax". Which is a ridiculous circular argument.
Oh, and he fails to notice that intellectual property is a government-granted monopoly and not something inherent. That should give governments some leverage when collecting taxes.
That's a fair point, although 1) I don't see anyone in British politics articulating a convincing alternative to free markets and free movement of capital. 2) A lot of the change has been tech not politics. If anything the politics lags behind the tech.
Something like the CCCTB is an option, but the British are short-sightedly opposed because it will hurt in the short-term. There needs to be an intra-governmental solutions to stop places taking the piss, with clear punishments (i.e. sanctions) if they refuse.
Of course, this would fundamentally require the right to see that there is a problem, when many see it as it operating just as they desire.
Why on Earth did we throw our lot in with France and Italy round that nations we are so much more alike, and that have our economically competitive philosophy?
I was looking at Venture Capital data on Europe recently, and it will come as no surprise that the UK was the number one recipient (about 26% of total VC investments in Europe, IIRC). What surprised me was that France was number two, only just behind us.
Of course, there's a very good reason why so many people choose to start their tech businesses in the UK - we have a fabulous pool of labour. People finish their tech degrees in Krakow or Bologna, and head to London to join start-ups and start them. The London technology start-up scene is probably the second best in the world at drawing in talent, behind only San Francisco and the Valley.
The Mansion Tax lacked any equitable basis under the LibDems - and I said so then.
The Labour proposal is just as bad.
It punishes the aspirational who borrow massively to buy into a dream location. Somebody with 250k equity can be caught by the tax whereas someone with 1.75m equity may pay nothing.
It punishes those who choose not to move - perhaps they bought years ago, maybe in an unfashionable area that has since been "gentrified".
It punishes those in the south. Someone in a 1.9m house in the north may have far more square footage than a house caught in London. Most of the houses that Joe Public would consider a "mansion" will escape tax due to geography.
There are no doubt some Socialists who will go "Heh!" at each of these points. Such poisonous individuals should be kept a million miles from power.
Why on Earth did we throw our lot in with France and Italy round that nations we are so much more alike, and that have our economically competitive philosophy?
I was looking at Venture Capital data on Europe recently, and it will come as no surprise that the UK was the number one recipient (about 26% of total VC investments in Europe, IIRC). What surprised me was that France was number two, only just behind us.
Of course, there's a very good reason why so many people choose to start their tech businesses in the UK - we have a fabulous pool of labour. People finish their tech degrees in Krakow or Bologna, and head to London to join start-ups and start them. The London technology start-up scene is probably the second best in the world at drawing in talent, behind only San Francisco and the Valley.
I have a bit of experience in this area and the UK, and especially London, is notoriously crap for tech startups. A major reason is that a lot of the tech "talent" (ugh) goes to work for the big banks because that's where the money is.
Comments
Now exempt from the Mansion tax ?
Perhaps a local sales tax would be simpler to collect ?
Are we reverting to times past when 'night soil' was collected daily from each residence?
UK's first 'poo bus' goes into service between Bristol and Bath
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30115137
The key point in that Knight Frank survey - assuming their figures are correct and Labour do allow all these exemptions - is that the threshold will have to be very much lower if it is to collect the sums Labour say they want to raise.
Check if you are a fatty.
At an average of about 50% of income spent on Mortgages (so let's say you are on £350,000/year) that leaves you with enough disposable income to pay a few thousand a year.
But your overall point is well made - they start it at £2m then all of a sudden it is a subsidiary tax (in addition to Council Tax) on property reaching down to wherever Ed and Ed see fit when they wake up in the morning.
Apparently I'm most like someone from Eritrea.
'It is clear from our investigation of official data that a £2m threshold is too high to
deliver a tax take of £1.7bn, let alone £2bn. In table 1 we provide an analysis which points
towards a threshold of £1.5m in order to reach the Liberal Democrats £1.7bn target,
and £1.25m to reach Labour’s £2bn target.'
So by the mid-term of a Labour government houses valued at £1.25m get clobbered by the mansion tax.
What is that word..begins with an H....
I'm like the average American (28 BMI), but I've dropped around 4 kilos since the Ilkley meet I think.
"Output in France's private sector shrank for the seventh month in a row in November, according to the Markit Purchasing Managers' Index. French private sector companies reported another drop in outstanding business in November. "
On a serious note, my weight's always done more or less what it liked. I did, some years ago, try hard to gain weight by eating more than I really wanted to, but it made absolutely no difference. My metabolic rate must be like a hamster on speed.
Quite agree on BMI, incidentally. It's a bloody ridiculous measure.
In reply to Richard N: the argument for the tax rather than variants that you might suggest is that it's very simple to administer and hard to avoid. There are plenty of existing taxes which fail to meet those criteria and are frankly odd in their application, such as stamp duty with its cliff edge effect on the whole value.
On your first point, good of you to say so but I'm sure I read somewhere that a mansion tax like council tax would be reclaimable by MPs as an expense.
Also, in terms of setting some minimum competency bar on being a politician/voter I think that it is knowledge of Mathematics, and Statistics in particular, that is most lacking. The knowledge of history among current members of the Commons is very likely to be greater than the knowledge of Mathematics.
It's not that remarkable that a politician like Hague has been a member of the Cabinet, and has made a reportedly useful contribution to popular history with his biographies. If a recent member of the Cabinet had made a similar contribution to popular mathematics then that would be altogether more surprising.
So one seeks to address the skills and competencies that are lacking, rather than those that are not. And, really, a GCSE/A-level in Maths should be seen as a very low bar, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of the electorate/House would fall short.
...if you are paying £8k per month in mortgage payments then you have (on average according to Google, which might be making it up but it is conservative) a further £8k per month to spend on gas, water, electricity, fortnums hampers, haylage, HF 1211 S Honda Ride On Mowers, bread, soup (on Thursdays), semi-skimmed milk, Lafite '61, side by side 12-bores, telephones, transport costs, Patey hats, margarine...
...and so forth.
There should be at least one more mathematician in the House by next may at any rate.
'Polly Toynbee has written an article today decrying the appalling greed of those with property wealth... she has three very large homes and is a millionaress.
What is that word..begins with an H....'
And sends her kids to private schools,a truly devout socialist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30131456
It would be interesting to know how many holders of science degrees sit in the Commons, compared to those with Arts or Politics ones.
Given the uncertainties I'd like to see the OBR publish best-case and worst-case scenarios for the public finances, and I'd then be worried if the outturn failed to lie within those bounds. Perhaps they already do this, but no-one seems to pay any attention to it if they do.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/only-scientist-in-commons-alarmed-at-mps-ignorance-2041677.html
Or why does it need to be part of the government at all? Surely the free market is better at analysing fiscal policy than a centralised government bureaucracy with no incentive to be accurate?
My prediction: you'll hear much more about them when there's a Labour government. I strongly suspect the sole intention was to give the right-wing press a quasi-official way of pushing the narrative of the left being "fiscally irresponsible", and remaining conspicuously silent otherwise.
There's no point in pretending otherwise.
It would of course be good for politics to have more mathematicians. However, would it be good for the mathematicians themselves?
The record of mathematicians in politics is not very creditable. Isaac Newton was a thoroughly dishonest and quarrelsome Master of the Mint. Paul Painleve was an ineffectual President of France.
Even at a more local level, the two mathematicians in New Labour -- Anne Campbell and Nick Palmer -- were unfortunately only to keen to vote very strongly for the Iraq War and very strongly against an investigation into it.
I can only think of Andrei Sakharov as a counter-example of someone whose political career is at least as important as his mathematical one.
As Ms Klass so succinctly put it, you can't just point at stuff and tax it.
The schemes the various shouty lefties were pursuing were ones whereby they could extract the money from their companies or other vehicles and pay pretty much no tax at all. This is presupposing that he wanted more tax taken so that more could be spent. Not so. In fact what he wanted appeared to be for other people's incomes to be reduced, as an end in itself. He could perfectly well have made himself more equal than others by giving his own tax cut back to the taxman, or even just giving it away. This was not the idea; the idea was for people he disliked to be impoverished by the state.
It would have been a satisfactory outcome for their money to be taken away as cash, piled up in a car park, soaked in petrol and the notes burnt.
It was not and rarely is about some public good. Colossal debt, an overstaffed and over-remunerated public sector and a benefits culture are not public goods, for example. Public good can only be delivered by expanding private wealth so that there is something to redistribute in the first place and a better mechanism than the state for doing so.
From last night: I am aware of the origins of 'Unready' to mean badly advised, and so I can see how in the piece referenced (referring in Ed M being 'Unready, uncounselled and ill-advised')one could argue Unready and ill-advised are being used in the sense of providing synonyms. I would however contest that it requires an overly broad definition of 'pooly advised' to apply to 'Uncounselled', which is just no advice, so I would say that cannot be a synonym for Unready in the ancient sense and thus there is still a contradiction unless Ishamael is indeed correct that 'Unready' meant 'not advised' as well, in which case I would be honour bound to withdraw my pedantic criticism.
This is important stuff here.
On topic, I find it hard to take issue with this piece. I dislike FPTP, but the same issues with our system that may be magnified further in 2015 were present in 2011and the people spoke and didn't care about those issues.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11237844/Why-cant-the-Coalition-fix-the-deficit.html
As it gets easier for people to move businesses around - it's actually worse than Carswell says because the businesses of the future may effectively be computer viruses with no physical location anywhere - more tax is going to have to go on stuff like land and property that you can't move.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lord-Mandelson-Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-hard-Britons-work.html
Here's a suggestion. I know it will seem alien, given your New Labour heritage, but if you are going to all the trouble of creating an entirely new tax starting from a blank sheet of paper, why not try to come up with something sensible?
Otherwise, it just looks like a silly gimmick. Perhaps that is because it is a silly gimmick.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/labour-tries-to-avoid-commons-humiliation-over-the-west-lothian-question/
"So Miliband wants to remove the review of the Barnett formula and the West Lothian question. Raab is unimpressed, telling Coffee House:
‘Ed Miliband is personally forcing a vote to try and veto any progress on English votes and gag even a discussion of the implications of Barnett. It is a gaping opportunity to defeat him, and highlight how committed he is to selling out the English.’"
Incidentally I do not understand the argument that the £2 million will be based on present market value. All that need be done is for Labour to declare that a house is worth £2.5 million for envy tax purposes. The fact that you'd get £500k for it if you sold it is neither here nor there. We do this already with council tax where we say that a house is worth £90k for council tax purposes and is therefore band E.
Labour always claim that what they propose is "fair". And yet they manage to do things in ways which are not fair at all, quite the opposite very often e.g. taxing a person with one £2 mio home but not someone (an MP, say) with lots of homes worth £950K each.
Fancy having to work with so much on the line....
Eric Pickles took the test. It said he was a Sontaran...
Edit - I see the Indie is claiming that to be a scientist you have to have a PhD. I guess there are a few eminent scientists who might take issue with that.
Suppose you have a nice final-salary pension of £50,000. So that's worth, say £1.5m?
Clearly you are a very wealthy individual.
Time to "mansion" tax your pension...
The coalition government in a nutshell.
Talk right. Act left.
1. Council tax goes to councils so they'd have to argue with councils about how to allocate any additional revenue plus only a few councils would get any extra revenue.
2. They want to highlight the NHS (which they see as a strength) and also be able to show how they're going to pay for it. The fact that they can present it as a tax on rich bankers / Russian billionaires paying silly money for houses in London is a bonus and, indeed, everyone agrees that silly money is being paid for property in London.
Beyond that I don't think any real thought has gone into it at all, which is part of the problem.
Meanwhile, having thought about it longer, the Lib Dems are now proposing additional Council Tax bands, rather than a separate mansion tax per se. This has the benefit in that it removes the risk of lowering the threshold of £2m.
In addition the coalition government has introduced ATED (an annual tax on residential properties held by corporates) initially at £2m threshold based on valuation bands. This is due to reduce to £1m from 2015 and then £500k. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-ated-statistics provides more details relating to ATED receipts in the year to April 2014.
And the reason the wealtrhy can jump jurisdictions is because that's the end-game of liberal economics, with free markets and the free movement of capital, policies that presumably Carswell supports. The right has entrenched a system where it's inherently the case. This is not a new idea to people on the left.
He's essentially saying "We've created a system where people can avoid tax... so we have to do with less tax". Which is a ridiculous circular argument.
Oh, and he fails to notice that intellectual property is a government-granted monopoly and not something inherent. That should give governments some leverage when collecting taxes.
http://www.parliamentaryrecord.com/content/statAnalysis/by-education.aspx
Doesn't the Left say the same? "We've created a system where the state has spent too much.....so to keep on spending we have to tax you more." That too is a ridiculously circular argument.
new thread
1) I don't see anyone in British politics articulating a convincing alternative to free markets and free movement of capital.
2) A lot of the change has been tech not politics. If anything the politics lags behind the tech.
Naturally, though, capitalist ideologues don't like that idea. Indeed, the right fundamentally believe in a race to the floor where the rich have all the power. They fundamnetally don't see it as a problem that needs to be solved.
Of course, this would fundamentally require the right to see that there is a problem, when many see it as it operating just as they desire.
Of course, there's a very good reason why so many people choose to start their tech businesses in the UK - we have a fabulous pool of labour. People finish their tech degrees in Krakow or Bologna, and head to London to join start-ups and start them. The London technology start-up scene is probably the second best in the world at drawing in talent, behind only San Francisco and the Valley.
The Labour proposal is just as bad.
It punishes the aspirational who borrow massively to buy into a dream location. Somebody with 250k equity can be caught by the tax whereas someone with 1.75m equity may pay nothing.
It punishes those who choose not to move - perhaps they bought years ago, maybe in an unfashionable area that has since been "gentrified".
It punishes those in the south. Someone in a 1.9m house in the north may have far more square footage than a house caught in London. Most of the houses that Joe Public would consider a "mansion" will escape tax due to geography.
There are no doubt some Socialists who will go "Heh!" at each of these points. Such poisonous individuals should be kept a million miles from power.