Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Evictions.
Why would you evict tenants when they're paying the wealth tax ?
They might not be able to afford the increase in rents so will need to sell the property to pay the tax.
What a waste of time Michael Foster's case was. I don't understand why the judgment describes him as suing on behalf of all members of the Labour party except the two defendants, Iain McNichol and Jeremy Corbyn. Wasn't this simply one person bringing a case for breach of contract: one member of an association suing because he believed it had breached the contract it agreed with him when he became a member? How could his claim be entered on other people's behalf, some of whom had no problem with the Party's decision? Nor does the judgment refer to any donorship or donation, but nevertheless his status as a donor is still being mentioned in the press as if it were legally relevant.
From the judgment: "Mr Gavin Millar QC, who represents the Claimant, said that it was not the Claimant’s wish that Mr Corbyn should be denied the opportunity to stand in the contest if his (the Claimant’s) case succeeded."
Well what redress was he seeking then?
Corbyn and McNichol should have been awarded costs.
The judge, David Foskett, may belong to the Athenaeum but his judgment is full of piffle. "It is quite obvious that one side will be pleased with the outcome of the case and the other side will not (...). I repeat as firmly and unequivocally as I can that the resolution of the narrow legal issue I have been asked to decide is wholly uninfluenced by which side will be pleased with the outcome."
Lots of rhetorical amplification there, but what he's saying is that he isn't corrupt. What is the point of a judge so declaring in a judgment?
It doesn't say Foster is suing on behalf of the Labour Party, it says McNichol is sued on behalf of the Labour Party. Not the same thing. At all.
Everything else in your post is wrong, too. You can take it as a rule of thumb that if you disagree with Mr Justice Foskett about a case which he has tried, your chances of being in the right are suboptimal.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
Most of those people are still homeowners, Nunu. Those who moved tended to move for reasons unrelated to money.
I have relatives - current and ex - who would be hit with £10k-£30k a year tax bills under this idea.
I'd be surprised if their incomes could cover the bill even before they thought about eating.
Wealth taxes will not be in the next Morris Dancer Party manifesto.
We are considering beard taxes. Three percent for a goatee. Thirty-two and a half percent plus one kidney for anyone with a ludicrously over-groomed Craig David nonsense of a beard. Zero percent for Brian Blessed.
This cock up as now admitted falls in with statements made on the R4 programme on security. The guy on there was a senior security source and stand it was only in January 2016 that the heads of European security services sat down together to discuss common plans and support.
January 2016...... Think about that for a moment. We were also meant to be safer in the EU as a result of combined security but there was little combining going on.
It really is scandalous that these agencies have not linked up before now. I suspect it's not quite as bad as was made out on R4 ( or perhaps it is?) but there certainly is a major disconnect in the cooperation of these various agencies.
I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.
It's based on the ward data I compiled for the local elections.
It's real votes in real elections, so gives an indication of the way the wind is blowing as regards the GE, but local factors must be playing a significant part.
I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.
"Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, has spent decades as a political adviser in eastern Europe. Mr Manafort worked closely with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted from power in 2014 and is a known ally of Vladimir Putin. According to Josh Marshall, one of the most vocal journalists questioning Mr Trump's Russian ties, his foreign policy advisor Carter Page has "deep and continuing financial and employment ties" to Gazprom, Russia's trillion dollar energy company. "It is no exaggeration to say that you cannot be involved with Gazprom at the very high level which Page has been without being wholly in alignment with Putin's policies," Marshall writes." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36862749
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?
That's the nub of the argument here. I suspect a number of people are paying the rent plus more simply to pay off someone else's mortgage. The basic principle of the banks is to ensure repayments can be made and in this case they obviously can. Then they demand a whacking great deposit which sinks most people there and then.
The mortgage system has always been unfair. When I bought my first house in the early 80's I could get a loan of twice may salary only. My wife could get a loan of half her salary only. Friends of ours who were not married got twice on both their salaries and of course got a much better house as a result. We were penalised basically for doing the right thing however Live in sin and I would have been far better off in the long term. It still irritates me now when I think about it.
( am aware of married couples allowance I seek only to indicate the difficulties in mortgages then and even now.)
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
Most of those people are still homeowners, Nunu. Those who moved tended to move for reasons unrelated to money.
I have relatives - current and ex - who would be hit with £10k-£30k a year tax bills under this idea.
I'd be surprised if their incomes could cover the bill even before they thought about eating.
The taxman will get his chunk when they die.
Owner occupation has gone below the level of the eighties, we need a massive government led house building, we I never thought I'd say.
Wealth taxes will not be in the next Morris Dancer Party manifesto.
We are considering beard taxes. Three percent for a goatee. Thirty-two and a half percent plus one kidney for anyone with a ludicrously over-groomed Craig David nonsense of a beard. Zero percent for Brian Blessed.
You've just lost the hipster vote.
Why not tax half-mast trousers to really screw them?
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
Better surely to cut IHT to 15%, but scrap every exemption and relief, other than the nil rate threshold? That way, you could raise serious sums from the very rich (but sums they can afford) without hammering the merely well off.
I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.
"Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, has spent decades as a political adviser in eastern Europe. Mr Manafort worked closely with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted from power in 2014 and is a known ally of Vladimir Putin. According to Josh Marshall, one of the most vocal journalists questioning Mr Trump's Russian ties, his foreign policy advisor Carter Page has "deep and continuing financial and employment ties" to Gazprom, Russia's trillion dollar energy company. "It is no exaggeration to say that you cannot be involved with Gazprom at the very high level which Page has been without being wholly in alignment with Putin's policies," Marshall writes." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36862749
Indeed, but I was talking about his campaign tactics and strategy, not his policies or friendships/alliances
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
Better surely to cut IHT to 15%, but scrap every exemption and relief, other than the nil rate threshold? That way, you could raise serious sums from the very rich (but sums they can afford) without hammering the merely well off.
Or just remove the primary residence exemption from Capital Gains Tax (maybe allowing people to keep the first £100k or so of profit tax-free). Would have the positive effect of reducing house prices for all.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?
Why should the mortgage payments be no more than what you pay in rent?
Mortgage payments are made up of two parts, interest ("dead money", equivalent to rent) and capital repayments (equivalent to savings). As you repay your mortgage the split between interest and repayments becomes ever more advantageous to you.
If you can get a mortgage which has an interest-only component of the monthly payment (ie before capital repayments) equivalent to what you are paying in rent or less then all else being equal you are still better off buying than renting.
If you are currently renting £xxx per month and saving £yyy per month towards a deposit then why can't you afford monthly payments of (£xxx + £yyy) per month?
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
Better surely to cut IHT to 15%, but scrap every exemption and relief, other than the nil rate threshold? That way, you could raise serious sums from the very rich (but sums they can afford) without hammering the merely well off.
Or just remove the primary residence exemption from Capital Gains Tax (maybe allowing people to keep the first £100k or so of profit tax-free). Would have the positive effect of reducing house prices for all.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
Better surely to cut IHT to 15%, but scrap every exemption and relief, other than the nil rate threshold? That way, you could raise serious sums from the very rich (but sums they can afford) without hammering the merely well off.
Or just remove the primary residence exemption from Capital Gains Tax (maybe allowing people to keep the first £100k or so of profit tax-free). Would have the positive effect of reducing house prices for all.
Wouldn't the £100k exemption just make people move house more often before the tax kicked in?
I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.
Indeed. To have wrong footed Hillary's camp into complaining that Hillary's emails are a national security issue is genius.
I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.
InForBritain @InForBritain Jul 26 Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words
Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.
Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
It's still like being a Southern Irish Unionist after 1922.
I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.
InForBritain @InForBritain Jul 26 Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words
Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.
Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
It's still like being a Southern Irish Unionist after 1922.
Remainers will be like Catholic recusants were in England in the 16th & 17th centuries in a few years. Skulking in dark corners of their houses fingering their way through copies of the Lisbon Treaty.
Weird - and that's nearly half the electorate!
Probably it was rather more than half in 1536. Not so many fifty years later.
True EU believers are a small minority of the Remain vote from June. They will be seen as cranks and oddballs a decade from now.
Will be really entertaining to see the Eurofanatics argue that we should rejoin the EU with no opt-outs or rebate.
Wealth taxes will not be in the next Morris Dancer Party manifesto.
We are considering beard taxes. Three percent for a goatee. Thirty-two and a half percent plus one kidney for anyone with a ludicrously over-groomed Craig David nonsense of a beard. Zero percent for Brian Blessed.
You've just lost the hipster vote.
Why not tax half-mast trousers to really screw them?
It's hipsters, hippies, and 'new age' types make me wince.
It's not what they believe: it's the unbearable smugness, and their utter vacuity and narcissism.
(Well, it is a little bit what they believe. Don't mind someone being left-wing, much, but why be so wanky about it?)
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?
You gamble like a madman when the result is spectacularly obvious (Brexit post about 1am).
I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.
I can't view that as anything but obscene: it looks like Putin is jerking Trump off.
That might be the message Trump intended with that logo, but I doubt it.
I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
Forget the tax for a second..
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.
I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.
I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence
"If you had to choose, who do you think would make the best Labour leader ?"
General Public
Corbyn 43 Smith 57
2015 Labour voters
Corbyn 60 Smith 40
Present Labour voters
Corbyn 75 Smith 25
I think Smith, who already was doing badly, has actually gone backwards.
Corbyn with a 50 point lead among present Labour voters, just think how large his lead is currently with members.
We all knew Corbyn led with Labour supporters and members, perhaps more significant is that Smith leads with all voters. That is the first poll lead he has had over Corbyn and could boost his campaign. Amongst voters as a whole Corbyn's ratings are abysmal, 57% say he is failing to lead a proper opposition and just 16% say he is doing an effective job. Even 44% of Labour supporters feel Corbyn is not providing an effective opposition and just 38% say he is. Smith leads with both LD and UKIP voters. Overall 33% would be less likely to vote for Corbyn led Labour compared to just 21% for Smith.
For now Corbyn is strong favourite and Labour supporters still back him, 52% saying they would be more likely to back Corbyn Labour compared to 28% for Smith. However as more polls come out showing Corbyn facing a Foot like landslide defeat some Labour members may take fright. The fact Smith is positioning himself as continuity Ed Miliband and Kinnock 2 rather than continuity Blair could see a few more vote with head rather than heart and without feeling they are letting the Blairites win
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?
That's the nub of the argument here. I suspect a number of people are paying the rent plus more simply to pay off someone else's mortgage. The basic principle of the banks is to ensure repayments can be made and in this case they obviously can. Then they demand a whacking great deposit which sinks most people there and then.
The mortgage system has always been unfair. When I bought my first house in the early 80's I could get a loan of twice may salary only. My wife could get a loan of half her salary only. Friends of ours who were not married got twice on both their salaries and of course got a much better house as a result. We were penalised basically for doing the right thing however Live in sin and I would have been far better off in the long term. It still irritates me now when I think about it.
( am aware of married couples allowance I seek only to indicate the difficulties in mortgages then and even now.)
I must admit, I think the French have this right. Every member of the family comes with their own tax allowance and thresholds stack. So, if you've a wife and three kids, and you're the only earner, you'll only pay about 15% on your first 100k of earnings.
Don't know if anyone has posted this 538 article on Trump's conference bounce. Interesting that, on an if held today VI, Trump now is favoured (55%) vs, corrected for conference bounce Hillary favoured (60%). Either way, this is a close race.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
Better surely to cut IHT to 15%, but scrap every exemption and relief, other than the nil rate threshold? That way, you could raise serious sums from the very rich (but sums they can afford) without hammering the merely well off.
Or just remove the primary residence exemption from Capital Gains Tax (maybe allowing people to keep the first £100k or so of profit tax-free). Would have the positive effect of reducing house prices for all.
And mean that no one could afford to move home.
That only holds if house prices are rising. If they go sideways for 30 years - as they did in Germany until a few years ago - then there are no gains to tax.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?
You gamble like a madman when the result is spectacularly obvious (Brexit post about 1am).
The implications of the discussion down thread about the survey showing baby boomers intend to spend their accumulated wealth are profound. For the UK property market is sustained by wealth passing down the generations, enabling the more fortunate of the next generation either to inherit or afford property at prices that would otherwise be beyond their reach.
I have long wondered about all the people you meet who have little pension provision other than their home (or BTLs), and intend to use their property to fund their retirement. If the equity of large amounts of UK property is converted into supplementary income for pensioners (through equity release, remortgaging or downsizing), rather than handed on after death to children, then the resultant drag on property prices must surely slowly but progressively return them to affordability when assessed against the next generation's actual incomes. This accentuated by the rising proportion of the population above retirement age.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.
I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.
I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence
The tenants would pay one way or the other though. Either in increased rent, or in poorer maintenance of the property,
I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.
I can't view that as anything but obscene: it looks like Putin is jerking Trump off.
That might be the message Trump intended with that logo, but I doubt it.
Thanks a bunch, Mr Royale. Now I can't unsee that image!
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?
You gamble like a madman when the result is spectacularly obvious (Brexit post about 1am).
I'm free and easy throwing five figure bids around at auction - in effect gambling on the future saleability of the asset (rare books and manuscrpts) that I am bidding on; but I didn't have the right mentality on the 23rd/24th - wanted Leave to win and so didn't want to risk more than a few hundred....
Of course, at that stage it was no longer really a risk. I hope you profited spectacularly!
"If you had to choose, who do you think would make the best Labour leader ?"
General Public
Corbyn 43 Smith 57
2015 Labour voters
Corbyn 60 Smith 40
Present Labour voters
Corbyn 75 Smith 25
I think Smith, who already was doing badly, has actually gone backwards.
Corbyn with a 50 point lead among present Labour voters, just think how large his lead is currently with members.
We all knew Corbyn led with Labour supporters and members, perhaps more significant is that Smith leads with all voters. That is the first poll lead he has had over Corbyn and could boost his campaign. Amongst voters as a whole Corbyn's ratings are abysmal, 57% say he is failing to lead a proper opposition and just 16% say he is doing an effective job. Even 44% of Labour supporters feel Corbyn is not providing an effective opposition and just 38% say he is. Smith leads with both LD and UKIP voters. Overall 33% would be less likely to vote for Corbyn led Labour compared to just 21% for Smith.
For now Corbyn is strong favourite and Labour supporters still back him, 52% saying they would be more likely to back Corbyn Labour compared to 28% for Smith. However as more polls come out showing Corbyn facing a Foot like landslide defeat some Labour members may take fright. The fact Smith is positioning himself as continuity Ed Miliband and Kinnock 2 rather than continuity Blair could see a few more vote with head rather than heart and without feeling they are letting the Blairites win
Smith also leads Corbyn with Tory voters, other than present Labour voters only Green, SNP and Plaid voters prefer Corbyn over Smith
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.
I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.
I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence
The tenants would pay one way or the other though. Either in increased rent, or in poorer maintenance of the property,
A land value tax, paid by the freeholder would be a better idea than a property tax.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
Better surely to cut IHT to 15%, but scrap every exemption and relief, other than the nil rate threshold? That way, you could raise serious sums from the very rich (but sums they can afford) without hammering the merely well off.
Or just remove the primary residence exemption from Capital Gains Tax (maybe allowing people to keep the first £100k or so of profit tax-free). Would have the positive effect of reducing house prices for all.
And mean that no one could afford to move home.
That only holds if house prices are rising. If they go sideways for 30 years - as they did in Germany until a few years ago - then there are no gains to tax.
Brown had the perfect opportunity to abolish capital gains relief on the principal property in 1997.
At that time due to the early 90's crash it would have hit few people but would have throttled the house price rises thereafter.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.
I can't view that as anything but obscene: it looks like Putin is jerking Trump off.
That might be the message Trump intended with that logo, but I doubt it.
Thanks a bunch, Mr Royale. Now I can't unsee that image!
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
I did that YouGov - looking forward to the full results.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
Not possible, the scottish people are against it and that't that, we've been told.
Re the valuation problem of a wealth tax how about self-valuation, with the kicker that if someone offers you that amount you have to sell? (Not an original idea, read it in a book somewhere).
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.
I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.
I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence
Owen Smith's proposal - which clearly needs a bit more thinking - is to tax total wealth of people above a certain income threshold (I believe he is suggesting £150k a year). Such an approach would be different from a property tax by taxing all wealth - hence it shouldn't increase rents since the landlord would pay the same wealth tax if they sold the property and invested the proceeds elsewhere.
What would be more sensible is to shift the balance of taxation away from income toward wealth. A land value tax has always been an interesting proposition, since it doesn't penalise putting land to more productive use or increasing the value of the property on the land. The problem has always been how to deal with asset rich but income poor people, such as some pensioners living in expensive property. The Labour proposal at the last election, of allowing the tax to be rolled up as a debt and paid after death, is a logical solution but not potentially a popular one.
As above the key is to demonstrably be replacing other taxes, for example by reducing the general level of income tax at the same time. At a time of austerity and such pressure on spending, this would clearly be difficult.
Re the valuation problem of a wealth tax how about self-valuation, with the kicker that if someone offers you that amount you have to sell? (Not an original idea, read it in a book somewhere).
Mr. Eek, you're thinking of Athens' wealthier citizens having to pay for a trireme each.
Edited extra bit: if one was nominated but thought someone else was wealthier, they'd offer to swap all their possessions to evade the very expensive duty.
Re the valuation problem of a wealth tax how about self-valuation, with the kicker that if someone offers you that amount you have to sell? (Not an original idea, read it in a book somewhere).
I'm sure that was how Rome paid for its armies...
If only there were some people on this site who knew a little about Ancient Rome and her armies...
Re the valuation problem of a wealth tax how about self-valuation, with the kicker that if someone offers you that amount you have to sell? (Not an original idea, read it in a book somewhere).
I'm sure that was how Rome paid for its armies...
If only there were some people on this site who knew a little about Ancient Rome and her armies...
I've already been corrected below.... I did put a element of doubt in my statement....
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.
I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.
I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence
Surely that would lead to people not downsizing when they should - children persuading parents to stay in large homes rather than go into care / sheltered accommodation etc.
That wouldn't be good - people being in the wrong accommodation to avoid a tax bill - and large properties being clogged up and under occupied.
Re the valuation problem of a wealth tax how about self-valuation, with the kicker that if someone offers you that amount you have to sell? (Not an original idea, read it in a book somewhere).
I'm sure that was how Rome paid for its armies...
If only there were some people on this site who knew a little about Ancient Rome and her armies...
Instead it is flooded with experts on AV... a shame....
I have got a university friend who lives in Luxembourg and Brussels has some wonderful historic buildings, a targeted airstrike at the Commission would probably be more appropriate
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
Forget the tax for a second..
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
The original debate today was about younger people with little or no wealth paying significant income tax on earnings but having to pay for mortgage and family, whilst older people with accumulated wealth and lower retirement income paid little tax and also had lower outgoings.
So for fairness, is there a case to lower income tax and introduce a wealth tax?
The suggestion is that the only realistic wealth tax would need to be on property or a land value tax.
I have got a university friend who lives in Luxembourg and Brussels has some wonderful historic buildings, a targeted airstrike at the Commission would probably be more appropriate
It is a bit of a Herodian excess I must admit, but it would make it more difficult for him to scuttle off just in time, like Erdogan did, if he got wind of it
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
I was out of the country for that election and so missed Kenny Everett's show stopper.
It makes me sad that, even then, obvious satire was tutted at so seriously by the PC do-gooders. FFS, he was wearing his Brother Lee Love hands as he called for the bombing of Russia and kicking away of Michael Foot's stick. Satire comes no more oCan you think of the reaction nowadays ...
I have got a university friend who lives in Luxembourg and Brussels has some wonderful historic buildings, a targeted airstrike at the Commission would probably be more appropriate
It is a bit of a Herodian excess I must admit, but it would make it more difficult for him to scuttle off just in time, like Erdogan did, if he got wind of it
Just send in the SAS after to finish off the job! (Although on a personal level Juncker seems quite amiable, just an EU diehard)
The burden under Labour didn't fall on the rich, it was the middle income earners who became known as 'the squeezed middle' that ended contributing the most and getting the least out of it (or at least it felt like it). It was them that got majorly shafted with all those stealth taxes.
I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
Forget the tax for a second..
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
The original debate today was about younger people with little or no wealth paying significant income tax on earnings but having to pay for mortgage and family, whilst older people with accumulated wealth and lower retirement income paid little tax and also had lower outgoings.
So for fairness, is there a case to lower income tax and introduce a wealth tax?
The suggestion is that the only realistic wealth tax would need to be on property or a land value tax.
It does have the advantage of taxing something unhideable
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.
Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.
Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.
RodCrosby was right again...
Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......
McTernan has said Hilary will win so she has absolutely no chance, Trump is a certainty
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
I was out of the country for that election and so missed Kenny Everett's show stopper.
It makes me sad that, even then, obvious satire was tutted at so seriously by the PC do-gooders. FFS, he was wearing his Brother Lee Love hands as he called for the bombing of Russia and kicking away of Michael Foot's stick. Satire comes no more oCan you think of the reaction nowadays ...
Didn't that nearly cause World War 3 as the various Geriatrics in the Kremlin were going through a particularly paranoid stage and thought it was serious?
I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.
Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.
Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.
RodCrosby was right again...
Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......
McTernan has said Hilary will win so she has absolutely no chance, Trump is a certainty
Mr Crosby has been very quiet of late.
So has Sean T since he went to visit Cde Bob, now I come to think of it.
Mr. Eek, you're thinking of Athens' wealthier citizens having to pay for a trireme each.
Edited extra bit: if one was nominated but thought someone else was wealthier, they'd offer to swap all their possessions to evade the very expensive duty.
What about stamp duty? I would replace the upfront transfer tax with an annual charge. This would significantly reduce the disadvantages of moving properties.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.
I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.
I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence
Surely that would lead to people not downsizing when they should - children persuading parents to stay in large homes rather than go into care / sheltered accommodation etc.
That wouldn't be good - people being in the wrong accommodation to avoid a tax bill - and large properties being clogged up and under occupied.
Then it's subject to inheritance tax in due course
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.
I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.
I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence
Surely that would lead to people not downsizing when they should - children persuading parents to stay in large homes rather than go into care / sheltered accommodation etc.
That wouldn't be good - people being in the wrong accommodation to avoid a tax bill - and large properties being clogged up and under occupied.
Then it's subject to inheritance tax in due course
Sure - but it's taxed twice under your proposal - once on sale and then the remaining amount is subject to IT.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?
Jobs.
Bollox, you would get far more jobs fixing the crap infrastructure across the UK rather than building a few willie waving toys with mostly foreign parts.
Comments
Everything else in your post is wrong, too. You can take it as a rule of thumb that if you disagree with Mr Justice Foskett about a case which he has tried, your chances of being in the right are suboptimal.
I have relatives - current and ex - who would be hit with £10k-£30k a year tax bills under this idea.
I'd be surprised if their incomes could cover the bill even before they thought about eating.
The taxman will get his chunk when they die.
Having a leader who makes a quarter of the elctorate FAR less likely to vote for you would normally be a case for alarm.
We are considering beard taxes. Three percent for a goatee. Thirty-two and a half percent plus one kidney for anyone with a ludicrously over-groomed Craig David nonsense of a beard. Zero percent for Brian Blessed.
January 2016...... Think about that for a moment. We were also meant to be safer in the EU as a result of combined security but there was little combining going on.
It really is scandalous that these agencies have not linked up before now. I suspect it's not quite as bad as was made out on R4 ( or perhaps it is?) but there certainly is a major disconnect in the cooperation of these various agencies.
But I never put too much stock in more likely/less likely questions, there are too many unknowns.
I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.
There are better ways of screwing money out of the rich. One is to make them pay more for the workers they hire to make their lives so gilded.
That is what Brexit was about - lets face it.
Mr Manafort worked closely with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted from power in 2014 and is a known ally of Vladimir Putin.
According to Josh Marshall, one of the most vocal journalists questioning Mr Trump's Russian ties, his foreign policy advisor Carter Page has "deep and continuing financial and employment ties" to Gazprom, Russia's trillion dollar energy company.
"It is no exaggeration to say that you cannot be involved with Gazprom at the very high level which Page has been without being wholly in alignment with Putin's policies," Marshall writes."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36862749
The mortgage system has always been unfair. When I bought my first house in the early 80's I could get a loan of twice may salary only. My wife could get a loan of half her salary only. Friends of ours who were not married got twice on both their salaries and of course got a much better house as a result. We were penalised basically for doing the right thing however Live in sin and I would have been far better off in the long term. It still irritates me now when I think about it.
( am aware of married couples allowance I seek only to indicate the difficulties in mortgages then and even now.)
Why not tax half-mast trousers to really screw them?
Mortgage payments are made up of two parts, interest ("dead money", equivalent to rent) and capital repayments (equivalent to savings). As you repay your mortgage the split between interest and repayments becomes ever more advantageous to you.
If you can get a mortgage which has an interest-only component of the monthly payment (ie before capital repayments) equivalent to what you are paying in rent or less then all else being equal you are still better off buying than renting.
If you are currently renting £xxx per month and saving £yyy per month towards a deposit then why can't you afford monthly payments of (£xxx + £yyy) per month?
And mean that no one could afford to move home.
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
True. Might only lose the tories 75 seats, that.
Actually I still think it would lose 100.
It's not what they believe: it's the unbearable smugness, and their utter vacuity and narcissism.
(Well, it is a little bit what they believe. Don't mind someone being left-wing, much, but why be so wanky about it?)
That might be the message Trump intended with that logo, but I doubt it.
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence
For now Corbyn is strong favourite and Labour supporters still back him, 52% saying they would be more likely to back Corbyn Labour compared to 28% for Smith. However as more polls come out showing Corbyn facing a Foot like landslide defeat some Labour members may take fright. The fact Smith is positioning himself as continuity Ed Miliband and Kinnock 2 rather than continuity Blair could see a few more vote with head rather than heart and without feeling they are letting the Blairites win
Ooops! Forgot the link: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-bullish-on-trump-for-now/
I have long wondered about all the people you meet who have little pension provision other than their home (or BTLs), and intend to use their property to fund their retirement. If the equity of large amounts of UK property is converted into supplementary income for pensioners (through equity release, remortgaging or downsizing), rather than handed on after death to children, then the resultant drag on property prices must surely slowly but progressively return them to affordability when assessed against the next generation's actual incomes. This accentuated by the rising proportion of the population above retirement age.
Of course, at that stage it was no longer really a risk. I hope you profited spectacularly!
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects
Britain Elects @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)
At that time due to the early 90's crash it would have hit few people but would have throttled the house price rises thereafter.
Britain Elects @britainelects
Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident:
Replace subs & missiles 36%
Scrap subs & missiles 33%
Replace subs, scrap missiles 10%
(YouGov)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2101508/Want-know-effect-nuclear-bomb-home-town-Theres-app-that.html
What would be more sensible is to shift the balance of taxation away from income toward wealth. A land value tax has always been an interesting proposition, since it doesn't penalise putting land to more productive use or increasing the value of the property on the land. The problem has always been how to deal with asset rich but income poor people, such as some pensioners living in expensive property. The Labour proposal at the last election, of allowing the tax to be rolled up as a debt and paid after death, is a logical solution but not potentially a popular one.
As above the key is to demonstrably be replacing other taxes, for example by reducing the general level of income tax at the same time. At a time of austerity and such pressure on spending, this would clearly be difficult.
By the by, has Corbyn formally responded to the outcome of the case yet? Must be hard not to gloat.
Rasmussen Clinton 43 Trump 42
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
Suffolk Pennsylvania
Clinton 50 Trump 41
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Suffolk_FINAL_PA_Marginals.pdf
Edited extra bit: if one was nominated but thought someone else was wealthier, they'd offer to swap all their possessions to evade the very expensive duty.
That wouldn't be good - people being in the wrong accommodation to avoid a tax bill - and large properties being clogged up and under occupied.
And this.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/758701132382400513
So for fairness, is there a case to lower income tax and introduce a wealth tax?
The suggestion is that the only realistic wealth tax would need to be on property or a land value tax.
What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them, or are they planning to load them with some of Malcs over ripe Turnips?
It makes me sad that, even then, obvious satire was tutted at so seriously by the PC do-gooders. FFS, he was wearing his Brother Lee Love hands as he called for the bombing of Russia and kicking away of Michael Foot's stick. Satire comes no more oCan you think of the reaction nowadays ...
So has Sean T since he went to visit Cde Bob, now I come to think of it.
See under Antidosis. And indeed concealment, and the point that landed wealth is hard to conceal. All amazingly topical.
Edit: it doesn't like that url, you will need to navigate by hand a bit.
Edited extra bit: ahem, without* missiles.
So 10% must be the rock bottom score
..