@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
I don't see why a measure mixing is not possible here.
Council tax 0.5% on property value (and abolish Stamp Duty as per the Proportional Property Tax proposals), and a general wealth tax on the net value of assets (which is what the Swiss do).
Well there you have it just added another 700 pounds a year on top of my rent
PPT proposals also include transfer of charge responsibility to the Landlord ! So if you aren't paying it direct and the LL puts your rent up by £700 that should be cost neutral for you, should it not?
(That would perhaps depend on tax treatment of the LL)
Follow up - if you are paying £1800 a year CT that sounds like you would be better off.
No I am paying 1125 a year with my single person discount, a wealth tax based on the house I live in would be 1800. My landlord would absolutely pass it on via a rent increase
They might well try but the market would apply surely? If the landlord could get away with a £700 increase they would do so now. But the market can't support it.
Most renters get a knock on the door within a week or two your rent is going up because of whatever reason. My rent is now 700 a year dearer....however so is anywhere else I can rent because they all want to make that money back.
My alternative when they all raised rent is to do what? Rent at the new price or become homeless
Yes.
The reason that your rent isn’t £700 more is because some other landlord won’t put their prices up that much. If the costs of most landlords go up, then a £700 price rise becomes possible.
Seattle boasts a baseball stadium with a retractable roof.
Is this option NOT feasible/viable/possible for cricket in the UK?
Granted cricket pitch is larger than baseball field (at least according to 10-sec of googling).
By complete contrast I've sat on the bleachers at Fenway Park for a post-season game in late October that went to 11 innings. Summer game? You must be joking.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Duh?
I've not actually seen a wealth tax proposed by any of our political parties to date (I stand to be corrected) but it's been suggested on here numerous times and never on mortgaged assets.
However, you confidently asserted that "People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own." I was just correcting that misunderstanding on your part.
Spot the place where it says it depends on how much equity you have paid off
Besides a side effect of equity based tax is it discourages paying off your house earlier. That just feeds into increased bank profits. Something you on the left want to encourage?
Mmmm. If you delay paying off your mortgage you either keep the cash you saved elsewhere (in which case its still part of your total wealth) or you spend it (in which case its taxed anyway, so no big advantage to you).
Also, bear in mind that any sensible WT is not going to be taxing Mr and Mrs Average - the allowances would be set to £500k or £1m or more (median UK = £125k in 2020; mean UK wealth = £305k, according to the ONS).
Depends what I spend it on, most of my free cash expenditure is not taxed
With respect, it doesn't sound like you are going to need to avoid WT any time soon.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
I don't see why a measure mixing is not possible here.
Council tax of 0.5% on property value to replace Council Tax (and abolish Stamp Duty as per the Proportional Property Tax proposals), and a general wealth tax on the net value of assets (which is what the Swiss do).
There would be a modest downward pressure on property values in more over-demand areas, as holding expensive property would be more expensive than at present. I think that is what we want.
"modest downward pressure on property values"
The last time that happened it was a disaster for hundreds of thousands who found themselves in negative equity, unable to sell and unable to afford their mortgages.
I shouldsay I am quite in favour of a hefty drop in house price values but for any Government causing it by taxation it would be electoral suicide.
Fair comment but are you not one of those who'd like to see a shift away from taxing income towards taxing wealth?
Guys quick question. In Spain, when a government cannot be formed, doesn't the existing PM stay on? I thin that happened once in Spain in the 21st century.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Duh?
I've not actually seen a wealth tax proposed by any of our political parties to date (I stand to be corrected) but it's been suggested on here numerous times and never on mortgaged assets.
However, you confidently asserted that "People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own." I was just correcting that misunderstanding on your part.
Spot the place where it says it depends on how much equity you have paid off
Besides a side effect of equity based tax is it discourages paying off your house earlier. That just feeds into increased bank profits. Something you on the left want to encourage?
Mmmm. If you delay paying off your mortgage you either keep the cash you saved elsewhere (in which case its still part of your total wealth) or you spend it (in which case its taxed anyway, so no big advantage to you).
Also, bear in mind that any sensible WT is not going to be taxing Mr and Mrs Average - the allowances would be set to £500k or £1m or more (median UK = £125k in 2020; mean UK wealth = £305k, according to the ONS).
Depends what I spend it on, most of my free cash expenditure is not taxed
With respect, it doesn't sound like you are going to need to avoid WT any time soon.
No probably not, I am never going to be rich but then I don't feel the need. I just want to have enough to live and mostly have that currently. I do have a lot of friends fretting with every new tax how they are going to make the money last however. I think personally its a blind spot on PB because I would guess most here have an income approaching 6 figures if not over. There are a few that aren't like Morris Dancer but on the whole the forum is probably the top 10% of earners
Seattle boasts a baseball stadium with a retractable roof.
Is this option NOT feasible/viable/possible for cricket in the UK?
Granted cricket pitch is larger than baseball field (at least according to 10-sec of googling).
By complete contrast I've sat on the bleachers at Fenway Park for a post-season game in late October that went to 11 innings. Summer game? You must be joking.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Duh?
I've not actually seen a wealth tax proposed by any of our political parties to date (I stand to be corrected) but it's been suggested on here numerous times and never on mortgaged assets.
However, you confidently asserted that "People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own." I was just correcting that misunderstanding on your part.
Spot the place where it says it depends on how much equity you have paid off
Besides a side effect of equity based tax is it discourages paying off your house earlier. That just feeds into increased bank profits. Something you on the left want to encourage?
Mmmm. If you delay paying off your mortgage you either keep the cash you saved elsewhere (in which case its still part of your total wealth) or you spend it (in which case its taxed anyway, so no big advantage to you).
Also, bear in mind that any sensible WT is not going to be taxing Mr and Mrs Average - the allowances would be set to £500k or £1m or more (median UK = £125k in 2020; mean UK wealth = £305k, according to the ONS).
Depends what I spend it on, most of my free cash expenditure is not taxed
With respect, it doesn't sound like you are going to need to avoid WT any time soon.
No probably not, I am never going to be rich but then I don't feel the need. I just want to have enough to live and mostly have that currently. I do have a lot of friends fretting with every new tax how they are going to make the money last however. I think personally its a blind spot on PB because I would guess most here have an income approaching 6 figures if not over. There are a few that aren't like Morris Dancer but on the whole the forum is probably the top 10% of earners
They need not fret about a wealth tax that would have a high threshold before there was anything to pay.
(My income is certainly not approaching 6 figures.)
If reading map correctly, appears Catalonia is where there is the closest battle on the ground, seeing as how just about everywhere else, the winning party locally has substantial margin over rivals.
Meanwhile, the challenge for Boris / Liz defenders is twofold.
1 Construct a timeline that doesn't lead to the fall of their champion. Complete personality transplants not allowed.
2 Construct a timeline where the Conservatives are more popular than they are now.
I don't think either can plausibly be done.
What's the point? What happened happened. Truss got a lot wrong, but two things critically wrong imo - she let her friendship with Kwarteng persuade her to give him less supervision than necessary, and she badly underestimated the strength and number of the opponents of her policies. It must have been quite surprising the see the American President snarling at her attempt to reinstate the 40% top rate of tax, as if it was any of his f***ing business, but there we were.
The point now is to look forward. We have a useless PM, with another useless PM in waiting. I see the best situation from here is for the Tories to ditch Sunak and give us an actual election.
Truss lost control of the narrative because she didn’t have an answer when people asked the obvious question of /how/ exactly her policies were going to bring about growth. Everyone could see that they made the fiscal position of the government worse in the short term & she had no answer to the growth question apart from “it worked for Thatcher”.
Unfortunately for her Thatcher cosplay doesn’t get you the right to economic growth & once she was revealed as an empty shell with no idea what she was doing (& her Chancellor likewise) the markets spooked & there was no way back.
This is an odd word soup that bears absolutely no relation to the events of the period. Perhaps save it for when they ask you to write a liberty-taking adaptation for stage and screen.
As a rebuttal, your snarky version of “I think you’re wrong” needs a bit of work.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Also it doesn't discriminate on equity payed off. If I buy a 500k house with a mortgage in law I am the owner of a 500k house. The house is merely collateral against my loan so the 500k is my asset
Er no, definitely not.
Would that house be worth £500k to your estate when calculating IHT? No.
Would that house be worth £500k when calculating you liabilty for social care should you need to fund it? No.
Would your house be worth £500k as an asset if you need to claim UC*? No.
In each case the value of the asset would be net of the mortgage. Same with any WT.
(*For UC your residential property is ignored completely but if for example you happened to own a property that you did not live in the outstanding mortgage would be netted off the value to determine the net asset you own.
No the house will be worth whatever it could be sold for, however the estate then has to dispense debts owed before anything left is dispersed and tax calculated. If I have 100k in the bank and credit card debt of 50 k IHT will be calculated on 50k not the 100k I had in the bank but the 100k was still my asset.
Will your wealth tax take into account thinks like student loans, credit cards, overdraft, money I owe my friend down the road? No it won't. Therefore money I owe the bank to pay off the mortgage similar
Yes, yes, yes, and no to the money you the friend down the road (you could just make that one up).
As I said, all this stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes.
Wow storing that one....BenPointer says "stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes."
Store away. You're welcome.
As an example for UC:
"H1602 The value of capital which a person has in the UK, is its current market or surrender value less 1. 10% of the value if there are costs of sale and 2. the amount of any encumbrances secured on the capital.
Example Louise owns a holiday home in Cornwall valued at £125,000. She has a mortgage on the property of £100500. The costs of sale (10% of the value) would be £12,500. This leaves the amount of capital to be taken into account as £12,000."
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
I don't see why a measure mixing is not possible here.
Council tax of 0.5% on property value to replace Council Tax (and abolish Stamp Duty as per the Proportional Property Tax proposals), and a general wealth tax on the net value of assets (which is what the Swiss do).
There would be a modest downward pressure on property values in more over-demand areas, as holding expensive property would be more expensive than at present. I think that is what we want.
"modest downward pressure on property values"
The last time that happened it was a disaster for hundreds of thousands who found themselves in negative equity, unable to sell and unable to afford their mortgages.
I shouldsay I am quite in favour of a hefty drop in house price values but for any Government causing it by taxation it would be electoral suicide.
Fair comment but are you not one of those who'd like to see a shift away from taxing income towards taxing wealth?
The sane approach is to increase housebuilding in various areas to reduce price increases to below inflation/increase in incomes.
This would mean no negative equity and no sudden loss of value. But would let the air out of the U.K. housing bubble in a steady, restrained manner.
This only requires a sensible, coordinated approach to the housing market from central and local government over a period lasting decades.
Excuse me, a diamond formation of flying pigs just flew overhead…
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Also it doesn't discriminate on equity payed off. If I buy a 500k house with a mortgage in law I am the owner of a 500k house. The house is merely collateral against my loan so the 500k is my asset
Er no, definitely not.
Would that house be worth £500k to your estate when calculating IHT? No.
Would that house be worth £500k when calculating you liabilty for social care should you need to fund it? No.
Would your house be worth £500k as an asset if you need to claim UC*? No.
In each case the value of the asset would be net of the mortgage. Same with any WT.
(*For UC your residential property is ignored completely but if for example you happened to own a property that you did not live in the outstanding mortgage would be netted off the value to determine the net asset you own.
No the house will be worth whatever it could be sold for, however the estate then has to dispense debts owed before anything left is dispersed and tax calculated. If I have 100k in the bank and credit card debt of 50 k IHT will be calculated on 50k not the 100k I had in the bank but the 100k was still my asset.
Will your wealth tax take into account thinks like student loans, credit cards, overdraft, money I owe my friend down the road? No it won't. Therefore money I owe the bank to pay off the mortgage similar
Yes, yes, yes, and no to the money you the friend down the road (you could just make that one up).
As I said, all this stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes.
Wow storing that one....BenPointer says "stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes."
Store away. You're welcome.
As an example for UC:
"H1602 The value of capital which a person has in the UK, is its current market or surrender value less 1. 10% of the value if there are costs of sale and 2. the amount of any encumbrances secured on the capital.
Example Louise owns a holiday home in Cornwall valued at £125,000. She has a mortgage on the property of £100500. The costs of sale (10% of the value) would be £12,500. This leaves the amount of capital to be taken into account as £12,000."
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Ok so TV has left bloc 172, right bloc 170, looks like only Junts and CC not being added to blocs.
Can someone remind me of the investiture vote rules for Spanish PM?
Is it absolute majority needed on 1st vote but then simple majority will suffice?
Thanks
Correct.
Thanks Felix.
So IF the current bloc numbers hold, and Junts abstain, wouldn't Sanchez be reconfirmed as PM?
Or are we expecting that a) the seat totals will change b) Junts will support Feijoo? c) not all the smaller parties in the left bloc total would support Sanchez?
Ok so TV has left bloc 172, right bloc 170, looks like only Junts and CC not being added to blocs.
Can someone remind me of the investiture vote rules for Spanish PM?
Is it absolute majority needed on 1st vote but then simple majority will suffice?
Thanks
Correct.
Thanks Felix.
So IF the current bloc numbers hold, and Junts abstain, wouldn't Sanchez be reconfirmed as PM?
Or are we expecting that a) the seat totals will change b) Junts will support Feijoo? c) not all the smaller parties in the left bloc total would support Sanchez?
Junts supporting Feijoo would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Don’t they loathe him .
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
It also encourages people to keep their wealth off books which is easy enough. For example I know a place to get gold in the form of sovereigns/krugerrands....no paperwork so no traceability
Meanwhile, the challenge for Boris / Liz defenders is twofold.
1 Construct a timeline that doesn't lead to the fall of their champion. Complete personality transplants not allowed.
2 Construct a timeline where the Conservatives are more popular than they are now.
I don't think either can plausibly be done.
What's the point? What happened happened. Truss got a lot wrong, but two things critically wrong imo - she let her friendship with Kwarteng persuade her to give him less supervision than necessary, and she badly underestimated the strength and number of the opponents of her policies. It must have been quite surprising the see the American President snarling at her attempt to reinstate the 40% top rate of tax, as if it was any of his f***ing business, but there we were.
The point now is to look forward. We have a useless PM, with another useless PM in waiting. I see the best situation from here is for the Tories to ditch Sunak and give us an actual election.
Truss lost control of the narrative because she didn’t have an answer when people asked the obvious question of /how/ exactly her policies were going to bring about growth. Everyone could see that they made the fiscal position of the government worse in the short term & she had no answer to the growth question apart from “it worked for Thatcher”.
Unfortunately for her Thatcher cosplay doesn’t get you the right to economic growth & once she was revealed as an empty shell with no idea what she was doing (& her Chancellor likewise) the markets spooked & there was no way back.
This is an odd word soup that bears absolutely no relation to the events of the period. Perhaps save it for when they ask you to write a liberty-taking adaptation for stage and screen.
As a rebuttal, your snarky version of “I think you’re wrong” needs a bit of work.
-When was Truss short of an answer as to how her policies would create growth? She was clear and consistent that she wanted to cut taxes to stimulate taxable economic activity. Pretty standard textbook economics, rather than some sort of arcane mystery.
-Even opponents of Truss have stated that she was strong at PMQs, having a tendency to actually answer the questions, which her successor has abandoned.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Also it doesn't discriminate on equity payed off. If I buy a 500k house with a mortgage in law I am the owner of a 500k house. The house is merely collateral against my loan so the 500k is my asset
Er no, definitely not.
Would that house be worth £500k to your estate when calculating IHT? No.
Would that house be worth £500k when calculating you liabilty for social care should you need to fund it? No.
Would your house be worth £500k as an asset if you need to claim UC*? No.
In each case the value of the asset would be net of the mortgage. Same with any WT.
(*For UC your residential property is ignored completely but if for example you happened to own a property that you did not live in the outstanding mortgage would be netted off the value to determine the net asset you own.
No the house will be worth whatever it could be sold for, however the estate then has to dispense debts owed before anything left is dispersed and tax calculated. If I have 100k in the bank and credit card debt of 50 k IHT will be calculated on 50k not the 100k I had in the bank but the 100k was still my asset.
Will your wealth tax take into account thinks like student loans, credit cards, overdraft, money I owe my friend down the road? No it won't. Therefore money I owe the bank to pay off the mortgage similar
Yes, yes, yes, and no to the money you the friend down the road (you could just make that one up).
As I said, all this stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes.
Wow storing that one....BenPointer says "stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes."
Store away. You're welcome.
As an example for UC:
"H1602 The value of capital which a person has in the UK, is its current market or surrender value less 1. 10% of the value if there are costs of sale and 2. the amount of any encumbrances secured on the capital.
Example Louise owns a holiday home in Cornwall valued at £125,000. She has a mortgage on the property of £100500. The costs of sale (10% of the value) would be £12,500. This leaves the amount of capital to be taken into account as £12,000."
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Also it doesn't discriminate on equity payed off. If I buy a 500k house with a mortgage in law I am the owner of a 500k house. The house is merely collateral against my loan so the 500k is my asset
Er no, definitely not.
Would that house be worth £500k to your estate when calculating IHT? No.
Would that house be worth £500k when calculating you liabilty for social care should you need to fund it? No.
Would your house be worth £500k as an asset if you need to claim UC*? No.
In each case the value of the asset would be net of the mortgage. Same with any WT.
(*For UC your residential property is ignored completely but if for example you happened to own a property that you did not live in the outstanding mortgage would be netted off the value to determine the net asset you own.
No the house will be worth whatever it could be sold for, however the estate then has to dispense debts owed before anything left is dispersed and tax calculated. If I have 100k in the bank and credit card debt of 50 k IHT will be calculated on 50k not the 100k I had in the bank but the 100k was still my asset.
Will your wealth tax take into account thinks like student loans, credit cards, overdraft, money I owe my friend down the road? No it won't. Therefore money I owe the bank to pay off the mortgage similar
Yes, yes, yes, and no to the money you the friend down the road (you could just make that one up).
As I said, all this stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes.
Wow storing that one....BenPointer says "stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes."
Store away. You're welcome.
As an example for UC:
"H1602 The value of capital which a person has in the UK, is its current market or surrender value less 1. 10% of the value if there are costs of sale and 2. the amount of any encumbrances secured on the capital.
Example Louise owns a holiday home in Cornwall valued at £125,000. She has a mortgage on the property of £100500. The costs of sale (10% of the value) would be £12,500. This leaves the amount of capital to be taken into account as £12,000."
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
Eh?!
What is hard about subtracting the mortgage outstanding from the property value? As I have said repeatedly this is already done in a consistent way, in at least three separate instances of the benefits/social care/taxation system.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Also it doesn't discriminate on equity payed off. If I buy a 500k house with a mortgage in law I am the owner of a 500k house. The house is merely collateral against my loan so the 500k is my asset
Er no, definitely not.
Would that house be worth £500k to your estate when calculating IHT? No.
Would that house be worth £500k when calculating you liabilty for social care should you need to fund it? No.
Would your house be worth £500k as an asset if you need to claim UC*? No.
In each case the value of the asset would be net of the mortgage. Same with any WT.
(*For UC your residential property is ignored completely but if for example you happened to own a property that you did not live in the outstanding mortgage would be netted off the value to determine the net asset you own.
No the house will be worth whatever it could be sold for, however the estate then has to dispense debts owed before anything left is dispersed and tax calculated. If I have 100k in the bank and credit card debt of 50 k IHT will be calculated on 50k not the 100k I had in the bank but the 100k was still my asset.
Will your wealth tax take into account thinks like student loans, credit cards, overdraft, money I owe my friend down the road? No it won't. Therefore money I owe the bank to pay off the mortgage similar
Yes, yes, yes, and no to the money you the friend down the road (you could just make that one up).
As I said, all this stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes.
Wow storing that one....BenPointer says "stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes."
Store away. You're welcome.
As an example for UC:
"H1602 The value of capital which a person has in the UK, is its current market or surrender value less 1. 10% of the value if there are costs of sale and 2. the amount of any encumbrances secured on the capital.
Example Louise owns a holiday home in Cornwall valued at £125,000. She has a mortgage on the property of £100500. The costs of sale (10% of the value) would be £12,500. This leaves the amount of capital to be taken into account as £12,000."
Sorry if louise owns a holiday home in cornwall why the fuck are taxpayers giving her anything in benefits?
Simple answer: she won't be keeping that holiday home in Cornwall if she can't work. UC is certainly not going to pay for it.
You miss the point, someone with a holiday home shouldn't be getting uc at all. Not that it won't pay for it
I don't disagree with you. But I don't make the rules.
You have however, moved your attention away from the original point. Which is that real estate assets are considered net of any mortgage on them. Thus your £1m house with a £900k mortgage would only be valued as an asset of £100k for WT purposes.
Today was a disaster for Test Cricket. It must never happen again
What can be done?
Spend half a billion building a roof. But cricket doesn't generate enough revenue to justify that, and you'd have to build them on all the test grounds.
Today was a disaster for Test Cricket. It must never happen again
What can be done?
Backup days scheduled!
Do everything. Back up days. Minimum overs. Move or cancel tea and lunch ffs. Start at 9am on dry days. Anything
Test cricket teeters on the brink of oblivion. Millions of people have invested emotionally in this series only to have it absolutely ruined by two days of typically shite Mancunian weather, like it is beyond the wit of man to work around such things
Many of those people will now shrug and think Fuck it, what a waste of time, at least with white ball you get a result
And thus the last bastion of Test cricket crumbles away
The tragedy is that if they'd played 30 minutes longer on each of the first 3 days the match probably would have been completed.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
It also encourages people to keep their wealth off books which is easy enough. For example I know a place to get gold in the form of sovereigns/krugerrands....no paperwork so no traceability
...and illegal if you don't declare it for example in the case of IHT.
Vox are down 19 seats since 2019 . Hardly a ringing endorsement for the media bigging up Spain’s alleged move to the hard right !
The media were slightly stupid in that regard because the opinion polls the whole time have been showing Vox making no progress on the previous election.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
It also encourages people to keep their wealth off books which is easy enough. For example I know a place to get gold in the form of sovereigns/krugerrands....no paperwork so no traceability
...and illegal if you don't declare it for example in the case of IHT.
erm you make that sound like anyone should care. You are unlikely to be caught and even if you are you can comfort yourself by saying I am no worse than a politician.
The law is a farce for normal people, it doesn't protect us anymore so why should we pay attention to it. If my house gets burgled it won't be investigated, no one will be caught and no one in power will care about that.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
It also encourages people to keep their wealth off books which is easy enough. For example I know a place to get gold in the form of sovereigns/krugerrands....no paperwork so no traceability
...and illegal if you don't declare it for example in the case of IHT.
erm you make that sound like anyone should care. You are unlikely to be caught and even if you are you can comfort yourself by saying I am no worse than a politician.
The law is a farce for normal people, it doesn't protect us anymore so why should we pay attention to it. If my house gets burgled it won't be investigated, no one will be caught and no one in power will care about that.
Well, you can always try tax fraud of course. I don't think it will end well though.
What I don't get is why a normal person like yourself would be against a wealth tax that would target the, er, wealthy.
Appears that some of the Vox vote has come back home to PP?
Perhaps positive portent for CUP in next UK GE? Though likely (IMHO at least) NOT as positive as for PP tonight.
I can never get over your use of CUP for the Conservative and Unionist Party. I keep having this image of a groin protector for cricket. Whilst it is credible to describe it as a mechanism for keeping pricks safe, it is a bit strained... 😀
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
It also encourages people to keep their wealth off books which is easy enough. For example I know a place to get gold in the form of sovereigns/krugerrands....no paperwork so no traceability
...and illegal if you don't declare it for example in the case of IHT.
erm you make that sound like anyone should care. You are unlikely to be caught and even if you are you can comfort yourself by saying I am no worse than a politician.
The law is a farce for normal people, it doesn't protect us anymore so why should we pay attention to it. If my house gets burgled it won't be investigated, no one will be caught and no one in power will care about that.
Well, you can always try tax fraud of course. I don't think it will end well though.
Tax fraud is about the only thing ever investigated these days, lay up you spare wealth in dodgy gold, cocaine etc and you wont be caught because the state no longer cares
Appears that some of the Vox vote has come back home to PP?
Perhaps positive portent for CUP in next UK GE? Though likely (IMHO at least) NOT as positive as for PP tonight.
I can never get over your use of CUP for the Conservative and Unionist Party. I keep having this image of a groin protector for cricket. Whilst it is credible to describe it as a mechanism for keeping pricks safe, it is a bit strained... 😀
Today was a disaster for Test Cricket. It must never happen again
What can be done?
Backup days scheduled!
Do everything. Back up days. Minimum overs. Move or cancel tea and lunch ffs. Start at 9am on dry days. Anything
Test cricket teeters on the brink of oblivion. Millions of people have invested emotionally in this series only to have it absolutely ruined by two days of typically shite Mancunian weather, like it is beyond the wit of man to work around such things
Many of those people will now shrug and think Fuck it, what a waste of time, at least with white ball you get a result
And thus the last bastion of Test cricket crumbles away
White ball can be rained off too. A reserve day would probably be a good idea, as would starting half an hour earlier with each day strictly 90 overs less calculated deductions.
‘Alien spaceship ‘could have crash-landed on Mars’ Scientists say they cannot discount possibility that pointy objects found on the Red Planet are debris from extraterrestrial vehicle‘
Appears that some of the Vox vote has come back home to PP?
Perhaps positive portent for CUP in next UK GE? Though likely (IMHO at least) NOT as positive as for PP tonight.
I can never get over your use of CUP for the Conservative and Unionist Party. I keep having this image of a groin protector for cricket. Whilst it is credible to describe it as a mechanism for keeping pricks safe, it is a bit strained... 😀
Personally have similar problem with CON - bit tooooooooo close to the bone.
Hence CUP which also "honors" the "Conservative" Party's undying "commitment" to the "Union".
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
It also encourages people to keep their wealth off books which is easy enough. For example I know a place to get gold in the form of sovereigns/krugerrands....no paperwork so no traceability
...and illegal if you don't declare it for example in the case of IHT.
erm you make that sound like anyone should care. You are unlikely to be caught and even if you are you can comfort yourself by saying I am no worse than a politician.
The law is a farce for normal people, it doesn't protect us anymore so why should we pay attention to it. If my house gets burgled it won't be investigated, no one will be caught and no one in power will care about that.
Well, you can always try tax fraud of course. I don't think it will end well though.
Tax fraud is about the only thing ever investigated these days, lay up you spare wealth in dodgy gold, cocaine etc and you wont be caught because the state no longer cares
Well I'm solving that for you: once we have a WT, lay up you spare wealth in dodgy gold, cocaine etc and fail to declare it and you'll be done for tax fraud. :-)
‘Alien spaceship ‘could have crash-landed on Mars’ Scientists say they cannot discount possibility that pointy objects found on the Red Planet are debris from extraterrestrial vehicle‘
Appears that some of the Vox vote has come back home to PP?
Perhaps positive portent for CUP in next UK GE? Though likely (IMHO at least) NOT as positive as for PP tonight.
I can never get over your use of CUP for the Conservative and Unionist Party. I keep having this image of a groin protector for cricket. Whilst it is credible to describe it as a mechanism for keeping pricks safe, it is a bit strained... 😀
Personally have similar problem with CON - bit tooooooooo close to the bone.
Hence CUP which also "honors" the "Conservative" Party's undying "commitment" to the "Union".
How about the Conservative Unionist Nationalist Tory party?
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
It also encourages people to keep their wealth off books which is easy enough. For example I know a place to get gold in the form of sovereigns/krugerrands....no paperwork so no traceability
...and illegal if you don't declare it for example in the case of IHT.
erm you make that sound like anyone should care. You are unlikely to be caught and even if you are you can comfort yourself by saying I am no worse than a politician.
The law is a farce for normal people, it doesn't protect us anymore so why should we pay attention to it. If my house gets burgled it won't be investigated, no one will be caught and no one in power will care about that.
Well, you can always try tax fraud of course. I don't think it will end well though.
Tax fraud is about the only thing ever investigated these days, lay up you spare wealth in dodgy gold, cocaine etc and you wont be caught because the state no longer cares
Well I'm solving that for you: once we have a WT, lay up you spare wealth in dodgy gold, cocaine etc and fail to declare it and you'll be done for tax fraud. :-)
No I really wont because how would they find it....I take money out of a cashpoint as normal..I have 700 cash left over after spending. There are no records to say I didnt spend it on food and spent it on sovereigns or cocaine and stashed it somewhere. The police are pretty dumb when it comes to looking for shit. I went through heathrow with an ounce of resin. Despite being searched they didnt find it because I had it in my hand clasped in my fist while doing as I was told holding my hands up while they searched me.
Today was a disaster for Test Cricket. It must never happen again
What can be done?
Backup days scheduled!
Do everything. Back up days. Minimum overs. Move or cancel tea and lunch ffs. Start at 9am on dry days. Anything
Test cricket teeters on the brink of oblivion. Millions of people have invested emotionally in this series only to have it absolutely ruined by two days of typically shite Mancunian weather, like it is beyond the wit of man to work around such things
Many of those people will now shrug and think Fuck it, what a waste of time, at least with white ball you get a result
And thus the last bastion of Test cricket crumbles away
White ball can be rained off too. A reserve day would probably be a good idea, as would starting half an hour earlier with each day strictly 90 overs less calculated deductions.
Test Cricket deserves to die. The utter contempt shown for the spectators, in person and watching, beggars belief
Vox are down 19 seats since 2019 . Hardly a ringing endorsement for the media bigging up Spain’s alleged move to the hard right !
I assume they'd deny it, but I think they can find it hard to shift from their prepared narratives. This is then covered by something being described as a shock, even if it really wasn't in every acse.
Today was a disaster for Test Cricket. It must never happen again
What can be done?
Backup days scheduled!
Do everything. Back up days. Minimum overs. Move or cancel tea and lunch ffs. Start at 9am on dry days. Anything
Test cricket teeters on the brink of oblivion. Millions of people have invested emotionally in this series only to have it absolutely ruined by two days of typically shite Mancunian weather, like it is beyond the wit of man to work around such things
Many of those people will now shrug and think Fuck it, what a waste of time, at least with white ball you get a result
And thus the last bastion of Test cricket crumbles away
White ball can be rained off too. A reserve day would probably be a good idea, as would starting half an hour earlier with each day strictly 90 overs less calculated deductions.
Test Cricket deserves to die. The utter contempt shown for the spectators, in person and watching, beggars belief
Cricket can tie changing the rules on weather delays to modern concern on climate change, so it is trendy - more extreme weather events etc, must prepare for the 21st century game.
Appears that some of the Vox vote has come back home to PP?
Perhaps positive portent for CUP in next UK GE? Though likely (IMHO at least) NOT as positive as for PP tonight.
I can never get over your use of CUP for the Conservative and Unionist Party. I keep having this image of a groin protector for cricket. Whilst it is credible to describe it as a mechanism for keeping pricks safe, it is a bit strained... 😀
Personally have similar problem with CON - bit tooooooooo close to the bone.
Hence CUP which also "honors" the "Conservative" Party's undying "commitment" to the "Union".
How about the Conservative Unionist Nationalist Tory party?
Fully United Conservative Kippers and Unionist Party.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
It also encourages people to keep their wealth off books which is easy enough. For example I know a place to get gold in the form of sovereigns/krugerrands....no paperwork so no traceability
...and illegal if you don't declare it for example in the case of IHT.
erm you make that sound like anyone should care. You are unlikely to be caught and even if you are you can comfort yourself by saying I am no worse than a politician.
The law is a farce for normal people, it doesn't protect us anymore so why should we pay attention to it. If my house gets burgled it won't be investigated, no one will be caught and no one in power will care about that.
Well, you can always try tax fraud of course. I don't think it will end well though.
Tax fraud is about the only thing ever investigated these days, lay up you spare wealth in dodgy gold, cocaine etc and you wont be caught because the state no longer cares
Well I'm solving that for you: once we have a WT, lay up you spare wealth in dodgy gold, cocaine etc and fail to declare it and you'll be done for tax fraud. :-)
No I really wont because how would they find it....I take money out of a cashpoint as normal..I have 700 cash left over after spending. There are no records to say I didnt spend it on food and spent it on sovereigns or cocaine and stashed it somewhere. The police are pretty dumb when it comes to looking for shit. I went through heathrow with an ounce of resin. Despite being searched they didnt find it because I had it in my hand clasped in my fist while doing as I was told holding my hands up while they searched me.
Fair point. On those values no one is going bother. But we were talking about a WT. Try squirreling away £1m in gold or cocaine. Then think about why are you keeping that wealth, what are you going to do with it?
Cos the moment you try to use it questions will start to be asked.
Appears that some of the Vox vote has come back home to PP?
Perhaps positive portent for CUP in next UK GE? Though likely (IMHO at least) NOT as positive as for PP tonight.
I can never get over your use of CUP for the Conservative and Unionist Party. I keep having this image of a groin protector for cricket. Whilst it is credible to describe it as a mechanism for keeping pricks safe, it is a bit strained... 😀
Personally have similar problem with CON - bit tooooooooo close to the bone.
Hence CUP which also "honors" the "Conservative" Party's undying "commitment" to the "Union".
How about the Conservative Unionist Nationalist Tory party?
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Also it doesn't discriminate on equity payed off. If I buy a 500k house with a mortgage in law I am the owner of a 500k house. The house is merely collateral against my loan so the 500k is my asset
Er no, definitely not.
Would that house be worth £500k to your estate when calculating IHT? No.
Would that house be worth £500k when calculating you liabilty for social care should you need to fund it? No.
Would your house be worth £500k as an asset if you need to claim UC*? No.
In each case the value of the asset would be net of the mortgage. Same with any WT.
(*For UC your residential property is ignored completely but if for example you happened to own a property that you did not live in the outstanding mortgage would be netted off the value to determine the net asset you own.
No the house will be worth whatever it could be sold for, however the estate then has to dispense debts owed before anything left is dispersed and tax calculated. If I have 100k in the bank and credit card debt of 50 k IHT will be calculated on 50k not the 100k I had in the bank but the 100k was still my asset.
Will your wealth tax take into account thinks like student loans, credit cards, overdraft, money I owe my friend down the road? No it won't. Therefore money I owe the bank to pay off the mortgage similar
Yes, yes, yes, and no to the money you the friend down the road (you could just make that one up).
As I said, all this stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes.
Wow storing that one....BenPointer says "stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes."
Store away. You're welcome.
As an example for UC:
"H1602 The value of capital which a person has in the UK, is its current market or surrender value less 1. 10% of the value if there are costs of sale and 2. the amount of any encumbrances secured on the capital.
Example Louise owns a holiday home in Cornwall valued at £125,000. She has a mortgage on the property of £100500. The costs of sale (10% of the value) would be £12,500. This leaves the amount of capital to be taken into account as £12,000."
Appears that some of the Vox vote has come back home to PP?
Perhaps positive portent for CUP in next UK GE? Though likely (IMHO at least) NOT as positive as for PP tonight.
I can never get over your use of CUP for the Conservative and Unionist Party. I keep having this image of a groin protector for cricket. Whilst it is credible to describe it as a mechanism for keeping pricks safe, it is a bit strained... 😀
Box, shirley?
I know nothing about Posh Rounders,, but I have heard the word "cup" to refer to it.
‘Alien spaceship ‘could have crash-landed on Mars’ Scientists say they cannot discount possibility that pointy objects found on the Red Planet are debris from extraterrestrial vehicle‘
@lindayacc It’s an exceptionally rare thing – in life or in business – that you get a second chance to make another big impression. Twitter made one massive impression and changed the way we communicate. Now, X will go further, transforming the global town square.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
You still havene't addressed the point that the only workable way for your plan is to tax the whole property value rather than the but the owner has paid off. And that opens up vast complexities and lots of obvious ways to avoid paying entirely
Your plans just won't work.
It also encourages people to keep their wealth off books which is easy enough. For example I know a place to get gold in the form of sovereigns/krugerrands....no paperwork so no traceability
...and illegal if you don't declare it for example in the case of IHT.
erm you make that sound like anyone should care. You are unlikely to be caught and even if you are you can comfort yourself by saying I am no worse than a politician.
The law is a farce for normal people, it doesn't protect us anymore so why should we pay attention to it. If my house gets burgled it won't be investigated, no one will be caught and no one in power will care about that.
Well, you can always try tax fraud of course. I don't think it will end well though.
Tax fraud is about the only thing ever investigated these days, lay up you spare wealth in dodgy gold, cocaine etc and you wont be caught because the state no longer cares
Well I'm solving that for you: once we have a WT, lay up you spare wealth in dodgy gold, cocaine etc and fail to declare it and you'll be done for tax fraud. :-)
No I really wont because how would they find it....I take money out of a cashpoint as normal..I have 700 cash left over after spending. There are no records to say I didnt spend it on food and spent it on sovereigns or cocaine and stashed it somewhere. The police are pretty dumb when it comes to looking for shit. I went through heathrow with an ounce of resin. Despite being searched they didnt find it because I had it in my hand clasped in my fist while doing as I was told holding my hands up while they searched me.
Fair point. On those values no one is going bother. But we were talking about a WT. Try squirreling away £1m in gold or cocaine. Then think about why are you keeping that wealth, what are you going to do with it?
Cos the moment you try to use it questions will start to be asked.
Also easy enough to turn back into cash with no governement oversight as needed. Your mistake is you are making the assumption I turn 1 million into gold and drugs then turn it back. The truth is you save up bit by bit then release bit by bit not in a giant splurge. Bring in a wealth tax and if I have money I will turn it into assets outside the governements purview. Simply the government is not there to protect me it is the enemy and that is the same for most of the bottom 80%
A peculiarity re: way that NYT reports unofficial election results - the % counted will NOT exceed 95%.
Addition returns will be added to the count, but the % counted will not change . . . until final results are official reported.
That's what the do re: US elections, and appears to be same tonight for Spanish election.
The Irish and British way of counting elections is better in my opinion. No percentages of the vote reporting, just 100% of the votes counted in each constituency as you go along, and that result is the final result for that constituency.
(Note: do they also count votes like this in New Zealand? Not sure).
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
But that is not the wealth tax any of our political parties have proposed at one time or another.
Also it doesn't discriminate on equity payed off. If I buy a 500k house with a mortgage in law I am the owner of a 500k house. The house is merely collateral against my loan so the 500k is my asset
Er no, definitely not.
Would that house be worth £500k to your estate when calculating IHT? No.
Would that house be worth £500k when calculating you liabilty for social care should you need to fund it? No.
Would your house be worth £500k as an asset if you need to claim UC*? No.
In each case the value of the asset would be net of the mortgage. Same with any WT.
(*For UC your residential property is ignored completely but if for example you happened to own a property that you did not live in the outstanding mortgage would be netted off the value to determine the net asset you own.
No the house will be worth whatever it could be sold for, however the estate then has to dispense debts owed before anything left is dispersed and tax calculated. If I have 100k in the bank and credit card debt of 50 k IHT will be calculated on 50k not the 100k I had in the bank but the 100k was still my asset.
Will your wealth tax take into account thinks like student loans, credit cards, overdraft, money I owe my friend down the road? No it won't. Therefore money I owe the bank to pay off the mortgage similar
Yes, yes, yes, and no to the money you the friend down the road (you could just make that one up).
As I said, all this stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes.
Wow storing that one....BenPointer says "stuff has already been well thought through and applied with tried and tested methods for areas like the benefits system, social care and IHT. Is it 100% perfect? No. is it workable in practice? Yes."
Store away. You're welcome.
As an example for UC:
"H1602 The value of capital which a person has in the UK, is its current market or surrender value less 1. 10% of the value if there are costs of sale and 2. the amount of any encumbrances secured on the capital.
Example Louise owns a holiday home in Cornwall valued at £125,000. She has a mortgage on the property of £100500. The costs of sale (10% of the value) would be £12,500. This leaves the amount of capital to be taken into account as £12,000."
Comments
The reason that your rent isn’t £700 more is because some other landlord won’t put their prices up that much. If the costs of most landlords go up, then a £700 price rise becomes possible.
Is it voyeuristic? Yes, probably. But they also want the travelers and they want the money and they want to feel embraced by the world. Not abandoned
Do it! You won’t regret it. Unless you die in a missile attack 🤷♂️
Weather - latest: New evacuations on Corfu in at least 18 areas; flights to get Britons out planned on Rhodes.
https://news.sky.com/story/weather-global-heatwaves-latest-uk-us-greece-italy-live-updates-12920226
That's Corfu, or Kerkyra to you, but a different island from Rhodes either way.
So commonplace that I don't know why I bother to mention it.
Certainly less white/blank space on their map of results by commune.
(My income is certainly not approaching 6 figures.)
Can someone remind me of the investiture vote rules for Spanish PM?
Is it absolute majority needed on 1st vote but then simple majority will suffice?
Thanks
As an example for UC:
"H1602 The value of capital which a person has in the UK, is its current market or surrender value less
1. 10% of the value if there are costs of sale and
2. the amount of any encumbrances secured on the capital.
Example
Louise owns a holiday home in Cornwall valued at £125,000. She has a mortgage on the property of £100500. The costs of sale (10% of the value) would be £12,500. This leaves the amount of capital to be taken into account as £12,000."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1163111/admh1.pdf
This would mean no negative equity and no sudden loss of value. But would let the air out of the U.K. housing bubble in a steady, restrained manner.
This only requires a sensible, coordinated approach to the housing market from central and local government over a period lasting decades.
Excuse me, a diamond formation of flying pigs just flew overhead…
https://academic.oup.com/book/5201/chapter-abstract/147859525
No absolute majority on the first vote, then some abstentions?
Your plans just won't work.
So IF the current bloc numbers hold, and Junts abstain, wouldn't Sanchez be reconfirmed as PM?
Or are we expecting that a) the seat totals will change b) Junts will support Feijoo? c) not all the smaller parties in the left bloc total would support Sanchez?
-Even opponents of Truss have stated that she was strong at PMQs, having a tendency to actually answer the questions, which her successor has abandoned.
-When did she ever say 'it worked for Thatcher'?
Apart from that his retelling was great.
PP
7,491,275 32.67% = 136 seats
PSOE
7,321,972 31.93 = 122
Vox
2,841,890 12.39 = 33
Sumar
2,811,160 12.26 = 31
ERC
442,468 1.92 = 7
Junts
376,000 1.63 = 7
Bildu
330,211 1.44 = 6
PNV
274,247 1.19 = 5
BNG
141,296 0.61 = 1
CC
96,784 0.42 = 1
UPN
49,614 0.21 = 1
What is hard about subtracting the mortgage outstanding from the property value? As I have said repeatedly this is already done in a consistent way, in at least three separate instances of the benefits/social care/taxation system.
Vox are so toxic that PP+Vox have to get over the line by themselves. Finding allies is going to be too hard.
PSOE+Sumar have issues galore and look set to end up behind. But they have a chance of finding allies.
Even still. Blimey. Didn't expect this.
Buenas noches noches, as they used to say on Puppet News.
Perhaps positive portent for CUP in next UK GE? Though likely (IMHO at least) NOT as positive as for PP tonight.
Or maybe they are only now being counted?
EDIT: The Local disagrees. Brilliant.
You have however, moved your attention away from the original point. Which is that real estate assets are considered net of any mortgage on them. Thus your £1m house with a £900k mortgage would only be valued as an asset of £100k for WT purposes.
"No Pasaran"?
The law is a farce for normal people, it doesn't protect us anymore so why should we pay attention to it. If my house gets burgled it won't be investigated, no one will be caught and no one in power will care about that.
PP 41%
PSOE 28%
SUMAR 17%
VOX 12%
83% counted
https://elpais.com/espana/elecciones/generales/congreso/12/28/79/
What I don't get is why a normal person like yourself would be against a wealth tax that would target the, er, wealthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Spanish_general_election#Opinion_polls
A reserve day would probably be a good idea, as would starting half an hour earlier with each day strictly 90 overs less calculated deductions.
‘Alien spaceship ‘could have crash-landed on Mars’
Scientists say they cannot discount possibility that pointy objects found on the Red Planet are debris from extraterrestrial vehicle‘
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/23/mars-protrusions-alien-spaceship-crash-landing-possibility/
Hence CUP which also "honors" the "Conservative" Party's undying "commitment" to the "Union".
Feijoo 1.76 / 1.83
Sanchez 1.96 / 2.48
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.215072830
Fuck em. Let it die
This article is bang on
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/07/23/test-cricket-ashes-spoil-rain-delay-australia-retain/
Addition returns will be added to the count, but the % counted will not change . . . until final results are official reported.
That's what the do re: US elections, and appears to be same tonight for Spanish election.
Cos the moment you try to use it questions will start to be asked.
Perhaps this has escaped ken of Telegraph editors, seeing as how the rag has clearly been taken over by Lizard People from Uranus?
Linda Yaccarino
@lindayacc
It’s an exceptionally rare thing – in life or in business – that you get a second chance to make another big impression. Twitter made one massive impression and changed the way we communicate. Now, X will go further, transforming the global town square.
https://twitter.com/lindayacc/status/1683213798386147329
(Note: do they also count votes like this in New Zealand? Not sure).
https://elpais.com/espana/elecciones-generales/
Frankly I'd trust them over the NY Times.
Currently showing 98% counted. PP/Vox 169.
With a 1.2 % PV lead for PP.