politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Osborne’s tax credits dilemma might be solved by the Lords
Comments
-
Stamp duty on that front has been addressed.watford30 said:
Ownership of property by foreigners through holding companies needs to be stamped out, and the City and Mayfair hedge funders need to be far more open about where money is flowing, and hiding.taffys said:''I suspect that the very people who should be taxed will avoid it, and the indigenous homeowner would take the hit. ''
Along with every tax that has ever tried to target the wealthy. Its the middle class that ends up paying.0 -
They expecting a poll bounce from that ?Scott_P said:@standardnews: Tom Watson is 'being lined up by unions to replace Jeremy Corbyn' http://t.co/CEEZ4WchlP http://t.co/lJ90Q8bepV
0 -
It's more a case of the Tories missing a credible opposition. Without anyone serious to hold them to account they have less reason to think through the implications of their decisions.OldKingCole said:
Well if they do it’s karma for the kicking the Tories directed at the LD’s in the early part of this year. Remember, the Tories gained 38 seats, but lost 10; the 10 were to Labour and 26 of the 38 were from the LD’s. Without those dains the Tories wouldn’t have a majoriity.Jonathan said:Are the Tories missing the Lib Dems?
Not sure they would have made this mistake with Clegg and co part of the conversation. One party government lacks checks and balances behind closed doors.
We may see a lot more of this stuff.
0 -
The only people missing LDs are the LDs - around 50 or so missing since last MayJonathan said:Are the Tories missing the Lib Dems?
Not sure they would have made this mistake with Clegg and co part of the conversation. One party government lacks checks and balances behind closed doors.
We may see a lot more of this stuff.
0 -
ScottP RE Watson.. they are obviously going for total obliteration then..0
-
I've no interest in participating in the "OAP - benefit or not? debate" but I've often wondered why all receipts (cash or in kind) are not taxable. Personal allowance could be increased to compensate the poorest. I'm sure I'll be told why this cannot happen but why differentiate between different kinds of income, earned, investment, benefits, freebies?nigel4england said:
And numerous posters agreed with me, the sensible ones.bigjohnowls said:
An OAP is a benefit, the most expensive benefit by far.nigel4england said:
So it will be an OAP and not a benefit? Interesting!bigjohnowls said:
Thanks, but I think the OAP I receive should be lower than under the Triple Lock if I live long enough to get it so my Grand Kids dont have to work beyond 70 to pay for it.watford30 said:
Owls is also a 'sponging' pensioner.nigel4england said:
As I said last night the Triple Lock is unsustainable, but you seem fanatical in your hatred of pensioners when they pay 11% of all income tax in this country.bigjohnowls said:
TRIPLE LOCK!!!!Philip_Thompson said:Welfare reform was in the manifesto. If the Lords blocks it are they going to propose an alternative £12 billion in cuts as was in the manifesto?
I think those who have been receiving state pension from 60 whilst calling for Welfare Cuts to Working Age benefits and expecting their Grand Kids to work to 70 or beyond to pay for it are the "Spongers".
But hey Ho sticks and stones.
I thought numerous posters had explained this yesterday
I don't want to go over it again, but if the Old Age Pension is a benefit why is it taxable?
Are all benefits taxable?0 -
Surprised? No.Scott_P said:@standardnews: Tom Watson is 'being lined up by unions to replace Jeremy Corbyn' http://t.co/CEEZ4WchlP http://t.co/lJ90Q8bepV
Karie Murphy, Falkirk, Unite, Revenge.0 -
Goodness, sterling is strong today - almost at $1.550
-
Given the bubble in prices, holding them for medium term capital accumulation seems misguided. Surely it's more likely that they're an insurance policy on more than one level (i.e. a physical as well as financial bolthole).Pulpstar said:
So investors are owning them and holding for pure capital appreciation reasons even if they can't rent ?rcs1000 said:
I work on St James's Street; behind us is a posh residential block overlooking Green Park. According to the doorman, fewer than one in five of the flats is occupied at any time. Which is staggering, when you think about it.Sandpit said:Another one of those that's great in theory or starting from scratch, but a nightmare to get to. My parents wouldn't be happy paying 5k or 6k in tax on their house when they already paid a huge chunk of stamp duty when they bought it. They pay almost no other tax from their pension income other than VAT and Council tax so it would be impossible to reduce their outgoings enough.
It might work if introduced in London at a higher rate for non-resident foreigners only, but remembering that 'Foreigners' means non-EU. Would still catch the Arabs, Chinese, Russians and Africans though.
Aren't rental yields in London actually quite low at the moment too...
Edit - just seen that various others have already made this point. Apologies.0 -
TBF, Osborne thought he had done enough to stamp it out.watford30 said:
Ownership of property by foreigners through holding companies needs to be stamped out, and the City and Mayfair hedge funders need to be far more open about where money is flowing, and hiding.taffys said:''I suspect that the very people who should be taxed will avoid it, and the indigenous homeowner would take the hit. ''
Along with every tax that has ever tried to target the wealthy. Its the middle class that ends up paying.
Properties more than £1m pay £7K per year, increasing to £23K above £2m and further above that.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/annual-tax-on-enveloped-dwellings-the-basics
They also have to pay a 15% stamp duty on purchases and CGT at UK rates when/if they sell.
These rates are actually a significant increase on the original amounts because a large number of owners chose not to "de-envelope" but to pay the penalty tax rate instead0 -
Some benefits are not taxed:ReggieCide said:
I've no interest in participating in the "OAP - benefit or not? debate" but I've often wondered why all receipts (cash or in kind) are not taxable. Personal allowance could be increased to compensate the poorest. I'm sure I'll be told why this cannot happen but why differentiate between different kinds of income, earned, investment, benefits, freebies?nigel4england said:
And numerous posters agreed with me, the sensible ones.bigjohnowls said:
An OAP is a benefit, the most expensive benefit by far.nigel4england said:
So it will be an OAP and not a benefit? Interesting!bigjohnowls said:
Thanks, but I think the OAP I receive should be lower than under the Triple Lock if I live long enough to get it so my Grand Kids dont have to work beyond 70 to pay for it.watford30 said:
Owls is also a 'sponging' pensioner.nigel4england said:
As I said last night the Triple Lock is unsustainable, but you seem fanatical in your hatred of pensioners when they pay 11% of all income tax in this country.bigjohnowls said:
TRIPLE LOCK!!!!Philip_Thompson said:Welfare reform was in the manifesto. If the Lords blocks it are they going to propose an alternative £12 billion in cuts as was in the manifesto?
I think those who have been receiving state pension from 60 whilst calling for Welfare Cuts to Working Age benefits and expecting their Grand Kids to work to 70 or beyond to pay for it are the "Spongers".
But hey Ho sticks and stones.
I thought numerous posters had explained this yesterday
I don't want to go over it again, but if the Old Age Pension is a benefit why is it taxable?
Are all benefits taxable?
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim76101.htm0 -
0
-
Does anyone know where Hunchman is? The second global sovereign debt crisis was due to have kicked off on the 7th of October at 3:11pm...0
-
Isn't this a mansion tax on hovels too?rcs1000 said:
From a straight economics basis, that is absolutely the right way forward.Charles said:
I would probably go with everyone.watford30 said:
For Foreign owners, or everyone else?Charles said:
I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.Casino_Royale said:
He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.Charles said:
It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawalCasino_Royale said:On topic, I suspect Osborne will do some mild smoothing of the withdrawal of tax credits over the remainder of this parliament such that the cuts kick in only as the rises in the minimum wage do.
That will, of course, put pressure on other budgets. He may slow the rate of the 40p tax cut - threshold increase - to £50k a year to partially compensate.
But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
I suppose he could up the non-doms fee. I'm not sure what easy targets are left there. Stamp duty is as high as it really can be at the top-end of the market. Any more raids on dividend income would be likely to be counterproductive, and probably the same with the banking levy.
I would personally like to see measures to stop non-residents using UK property as a global bank account.
Total value of UK residential stock is around £5 trillion. A 1% tax yields £50bn per year
Council tax is £30bn in total. Let's assume that 50% of that is local services, and 50% is central government mandated obligations. I'd fund the latter centrally.
Stamp duty is £10bn, so I'd halve that, with the aim of making sure that the average house is basically tax free to buy (but, of course, comes with a 1% annual liability i.e. around £2,500)
That gives you £30bn to play with
Roughly speaking I'd allocate £10bn to deficit reduction and then £20bn to targeted tax/cost of living reductions. e.g. employee NICs, fuel duty, elimination of the mandated green charges on fuel bills, etc.
Basically the aim is to move the burden of taxation from economically productive functions to rentier/asset gathering activities.
Of course, it would be unpopular with a lot of people.0 -
Good. Taking a few days off school to see a part of the world at the only time parents can take it off is not the same as truancy and should not be viewed as such. When I was young I was taken off for holidays during term time and it did my education no harm whatsoever.nigel4england said:This could have consequences:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035hzv0
It is not just about prices during term time versus holiday prices either. It frustrates me that it gets dumbed down to that level whenever it comes up.0 -
Attend school "regularly".nigel4england said:This could have consequences:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035hzv0
M'Lord, my daughter goes to school once a year, as regular as clockwork...
0 -
Mr. 1000, Mr. Hunchman does have prolonged intervals between bouts of posting. It is known.0
-
A concept more usually used for "regular church-goers"!rcs1000 said:
Attend school "regularly".nigel4england said:This could have consequences:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035hzv0
M'Lord, my daughter goes to school once a year, as regular as clockwork...0 -
I imagine he's counting his profits.rcs1000 said:Does anyone know where Hunchman is? The second global sovereign debt crisis was due to have kicked off on the 7th of October at 3:11pm...
0 -
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)0 -
Mansion taxes are a bad idea because of the threshold effect, not because of the principle of taxing property moreReggieCide said:
Isn't this a mansion tax on hovels too?rcs1000 said:
From a straight economics basis, that is absolutely the right way forward.Charles said:
I would probably go with everyone.watford30 said:
For Foreign owners, or everyone else?Charles said:
I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.Casino_Royale said:
He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.Charles said:
It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawalCasino_Royale said:On topic, I suspect Osborne will do some mild smoothing of the withdrawal of tax credits over the remainder of this parliament such that the cuts kick in only as the rises in the minimum wage do.
That will, of course, put pressure on other budgets. He may slow the rate of the 40p tax cut - threshold increase - to £50k a year to partially compensate.
But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
I suppose he could up the non-doms fee. I'm not sure what easy targets are left there. Stamp duty is as high as it really can be at the top-end of the market. Any more raids on dividend income would be likely to be counterproductive, and probably the same with the banking levy.
I would personally like to see measures to stop non-residents using UK property as a global bank account.
Total value of UK residential stock is around £5 trillion. A 1% tax yields £50bn per year
Council tax is £30bn in total. Let's assume that 50% of that is local services, and 50% is central government mandated obligations. I'd fund the latter centrally.
Stamp duty is £10bn, so I'd halve that, with the aim of making sure that the average house is basically tax free to buy (but, of course, comes with a 1% annual liability i.e. around £2,500)
That gives you £30bn to play with
Roughly speaking I'd allocate £10bn to deficit reduction and then £20bn to targeted tax/cost of living reductions. e.g. employee NICs, fuel duty, elimination of the mandated green charges on fuel bills, etc.
Basically the aim is to move the burden of taxation from economically productive functions to rentier/asset gathering activities.
Of course, it would be unpopular with a lot of people.0 -
LOL I was wondering that. We've reached October without the world collapsing around us, who would have ever guessed?rcs1000 said:Does anyone know where Hunchman is? The second global sovereign debt crisis was due to have kicked off on the 7th of October at 3:11pm...
0 -
It would be unpopular with a lot of people who:rcs1000 said:
From a straight economics basis, that is absolutely the right way forward.Charles said:
I would probably go with everyone.watford30 said:
For Foreign owners, or everyone else?Charles said:
I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.Casino_Royale said:
He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.Charles said:
It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawalCasino_Royale said:On topic, I suspect Osborne will do some mild smoothing of the withdrawal of tax credits over the remainder of this parliament such that the cuts kick in only as the rises in the minimum wage do.
That will, of course, put pressure on other budgets. He may slow the rate of the 40p tax cut - threshold increase - to £50k a year to partially compensate.
But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
I suppose he could up the non-doms fee. I'm not sure what easy targets are left there. Stamp duty is as high as it really can be at the top-end of the market. Any more raids on dividend income would be likely to be counterproductive, and probably the same with the banking levy.
I would personally like to see measures to stop non-residents using UK property as a global bank account.
Total value of UK residential stock is around £5 trillion. A 1% tax yields £50bn per year
Council tax is £30bn in total. Let's assume that 50% of that is local services, and 50% is central government mandated obligations. I'd fund the latter centrally.
Stamp duty is £10bn, so I'd halve that, with the aim of making sure that the average house is basically tax free to buy (but, of course, comes with a 1% annual liability i.e. around £2,500)
That gives you £30bn to play with
Roughly speaking I'd allocate £10bn to deficit reduction and then £20bn to targeted tax/cost of living reductions. e.g. employee NICs, fuel duty, elimination of the mandated green charges on fuel bills, etc.
Basically the aim is to move the burden of taxation from economically productive functions to rentier/asset gathering activities.
Of course, it would be unpopular with a lot of people.
1. Have a high propensity to turn out to vote, and
2. Have a high propensity to vote Tory when they do turn out.
So it won't happen.0 -
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?0 -
In large part thanks to Megalomaniac MerkelMorris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, that's lamentably misleading reporting. You don't accidentally find yourself travelling thousands of miles, and you're not a refugee anymore if you decide to reach a safe country (say, Turkey) and keep going through Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria and Germany.
Once safety's reached, further migration is economic.
Not to mention a large proportion, perhaps a majority, are economic migrants to start with.0 -
Mr. Cide, indeed. I do believe (presuming the EU/eurozone doesn't collapse in the next few years) she's written her political legacy.0
-
''Mr. Cide, indeed. I do believe (presuming the EU/eurozone doesn't collapse in the next few years) she's written her political legacy. ''
Which is of course the most important thing. Not what happens to Europe after she's gone,
.0 -
Talking of pensions, are top rate taxpayers going to be losing all tax relief on their pension contributions or just the top rate bit?0
-
Good education for the frothers on here.
http://www.thenational.scot/cartoon/the-cult.360 -
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.0 -
Mr. 30, not sure that's reasonable.
Mr. Taffys, for clarity, I didn't mean 'legacy' in a good sense, but I do agree her motivation isn't reason or what's best for her country or the EU, but the desire to be seen to be good.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 30, to expand on my point, let's say I'm an artist. And I've got half a dozen unsold paintings, which are all fantastic. Would you tax me on those?0 -
Not sure I entirely agree. It is not at all clear that Turkey is what we would define as a "safe" country. They don't have bombers threatening to kill them yes but there are millions of refugees there that don't have anywhere to settle down, build a home and do any of the normal things that we would consider as standard. Not only that but Turkey themselves are quite vicious to certain minorities like the Kurds. If you've lost your home, your livelihood and everything you don't just want to retreat until you're no longer shot at but until you can rebuild.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, that's lamentably misleading reporting. You don't accidentally find yourself travelling thousands of miles, and you're not a refugee anymore if you decide to reach a safe country (say, Turkey) and keep going through Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria and Germany.
Once safety's reached, further migration is economic.
Not to mention a large proportion, perhaps a majority, are economic migrants to start with.
That doesn't necessarily expand to all the other nations between Greece and Germany but does potentially for Turkey. Erdogan's Turkey is going backwards fast.0 -
It wasn't a question of principle about including them, more a question about the forced sell mechanism.watford30 said:
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
These are documents for which there is no obvious market so there is no way of ascribing a reasonably sensible valuation (as you can with a Old Master, by comparison). But if we get the number "wrong" then we could be forced to sell something which really only has value to use / as a public resource.
That's why I prefer a property tax to a more general wealth tax.
And why the forced sale mechanism is iniquitous0 -
Top rate and reduced LTE I've read....SouthamObserver said:Talking of pensions, are top rate taxpayers going to be losing all tax relief on their pension contributions or just the top rate bit?
0 -
Firstly, I don't hold with a wealth tax other than death duties, which is more equivalent to an income tax.watford30 said:
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
However, that said, if historic documents are held privately then yes, they should be taxed the same as anything else. However, as with other items of national value or significance, one option would be to enable any documents in that position which are catalogued and made publicly available on demand (subject to reasonable notice), to be tax-free as essentially held in trust for the nation.0 -
I'm off for a bit, but a cunning spot I made (both now and 3 years ago): the complete works of Plutarch cost £20, but are free, all 1,000+ pages, on Kindle.
Just search 'Plutarch Arthur' [translator's first name is Arthur] and it'll come up.
I was flicking through TA Dodge's biography of Hannibal for other sources when I saw him mention Plutarch's Lives included Fabius (presumably the Cunctator) and Marcellus, and then found the full work on Amazon, only to discover I'd downloaded it 3 years ago and forgotten I did so...0 -
-
When you are a bit older malc - you can move onto a funnier Scottish comic line the Beano.malcolmg said:Good education for the frothers on here.
http://www.thenational.scot/cartoon/the-cult.360 -
-
It's comes as no surprise that your idea of 'education' is reading a comic.malcolmg said:Good education for the frothers on here.
http://www.thenational.scot/cartoon/the-cult.360 -
No wonder standards are in crisis in Scottish schools.watford30 said:
It's comes as no surprise that your idea of 'education' is reading a comic.malcolmg said:Good education for the frothers on here.
http://www.thenational.scot/cartoon/the-cult.36
0 -
We do actually assign a value to heritage assets, including paperwork, in our balance sheet. But the issue is with the forced sale provision, nothing else.david_herdson said:
Firstly, I don't hold with a wealth tax other than death duties, which is more equivalent to an income tax.watford30 said:
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
However, that said, if historic documents are held privately then yes, they should be taxed the same as anything else. However, as with other items of national value or significance, one option would be to enable any documents in that position which are catalogued and made publicly available on demand (subject to reasonable notice), to be tax-free as essentially held in trust for the nation.0 -
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
0 -
I might agree with Charles, but only for high-end properties. I think family homes should be exempt.watford30 said:
Good luck with that.Charles said:
I would probably go with everyone.watford30 said:
For Foreign owners, or everyone else?Charles said:
I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.Casino_Royale said:
He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.Charles said:
It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawalCasino_Royale said:On topic, I suspect Osborne will do some mild smoothing of the withdrawal of tax credits over the remainder of this parliament such that the cuts kick in only as the rises in the minimum wage do.
That will, of course, put pressure on other budgets. He may slow the rate of the 40p tax cut - threshold increase - to £50k a year to partially compensate.
But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
I suppose he could up the non-doms fee. I'm not sure what easy targets are left there. Stamp duty is as high as it really can be at the top-end of the market. Any more raids on dividend income would be likely to be counterproductive, and probably the same with the banking levy.
I would personally like to see measures to stop non-residents using UK property as a global bank account.
Total value of UK residential stock is around £5 trillion. A 1% tax yields £50bn per year
Council tax is £30bn in total. Let's assume that 50% of that is local services, and 50% is central government mandated obligations. I'd fund the latter centrally.
Stamp duty is £10bn, so I'd halve that, with the aim of making sure that the average house is basically tax free to buy (but, of course, comes with a 1% annual liability i.e. around £2,500)
That gives you £30bn to play with
Roughly speaking I'd allocate £10bn to deficit reduction and then £20bn to targeted tax/cost of living reductions. e.g. employee NICs, fuel duty, elimination of the mandated green charges on fuel bills, etc.
Basically the aim is to move the burden of taxation from economically productive functions to rentier/asset gathering activities.
Average house price is around £275,000, and for the South East it's £500K.
No government is going to go ahead with tax rises of £2750 pa, nor another £5K year plus in the South East on someone purely for owning their house, without slashing that individual's tax substantially elsewhere or facing annihilation at the ballot box.
I know you'll beg to differ, but most people view where they live as a home, not an asset.0 -
Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..0
-
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...Mortimer said:
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)0 -
Charging non-resident foreign property owners on property assets above the UK average property value at 1% a year would be politically popular IMHO.Charles said:
Of course - and as @rcs1000 said it would be very unpopular.watford30 said:
Good luck with that.Charles said:
I would probably go with everyone.
Total value of UK residential stock is around £5 trillion. A 1% tax yields £50bn per year
Council tax is £30bn in total. Let's assume that 50% of that is local services, and 50% is central government mandated obligations. I'd fund the latter centrally.
Stamp duty is £10bn, so I'd halve that, with the aim of making sure that the average house is basically tax free to buy (but, of course, comes with a 1% annual liability i.e. around £2,500)
That gives you £30bn to play with
Roughly speaking I'd allocate £10bn to deficit reduction and then £20bn to targeted tax/cost of living reductions. e.g. employee NICs, fuel duty, elimination of the mandated green charges on fuel bills, etc.
Basically the aim is to move the burden of taxation from economically productive functions to rentier/asset gathering activities.
Average house price is around £275,000, and for the South East it's £500K.
No government is going to go ahead with tax rises of £2750 pa, nor another £5K year plus in the South East on someone purely for owning their house, without slashing that individual's tax substantially elsewhere or facing annihilation at the ballot box.
I know you'll beg to differ, but most people view where they live as a home, not an asset.
And these suggestions were just off the top of my head, but the aim of reducing various taxes would be to try and balance out the tax rises with the reductions.
Another way to look at it, for instance, would be to have a £200K tax free band on principle private residences, for example, although this would reduce the tax take significantly.
I'm trying to find a way to hit foreign owners, BTL investors and improve economic efficiency, while also moderating house prices without cratering the banks. And that's just on Monday morning
p.s. A house is absolutely a home, and should never be viewed as an investment. Strictly speaking it's a liability not an asset...0 -
And a well balanced meal in Scotland, is the addition of salad to something that has been deep fried.TGOHF said:
No wonder standards are in crisis in Scottish schools.watford30 said:
It's comes as no surprise that your idea of 'education' is reading a comic.malcolmg said:Good education for the frothers on here.
http://www.thenational.scot/cartoon/the-cult.360 -
I agree - I'd probably look at a PPR exemption, possibly, but not do it on foreign residency (so BTL gets hit as well)Casino_Royale said:
Charging non-resident foreign property owners on property assets above the UK average property value at 1% a year would be politically popular IMHO.Charles said:
Of course - and as @rcs1000 said it would be very unpopular.watford30 said:
Good luck with that.Charles said:
I would probably go with everyone.
Total value of UK residential stock is around £5 trillion. A 1% tax yields £50bn per year
Council tax is £30bn in total. Let's assume that 50% of that is local services, and 50% is central government mandated obligations. I'd fund the latter centrally.
Stamp duty is £10bn, so I'd halve that, with the aim of making sure that the average house is basically tax free to buy (but, of course, comes with a 1% annual liability i.e. around £2,500)
That gives you £30bn to play with
Roughly speaking I'd allocate £10bn to deficit reduction and then £20bn to targeted tax/cost of living reductions. e.g. employee NICs, fuel duty, elimination of the mandated green charges on fuel bills, etc.
Basically the aim is to move the burden of taxation from economically productive functions to rentier/asset gathering activities.
Average house price is around £275,000, and for the South East it's £500K.
No government is going to go ahead with tax rises of £2750 pa, nor another £5K year plus in the South East on someone purely for owning their house, without slashing that individual's tax substantially elsewhere or facing annihilation at the ballot box.
I know you'll beg to differ, but most people view where they live as a home, not an asset.
And these suggestions were just off the top of my head, but the aim of reducing various taxes would be to try and balance out the tax rises with the reductions.
Another way to look at it, for instance, would be to have a £200K tax free band on principle private residences, for example, although this would reduce the tax take significantly.
I'm trying to find a way to hit foreign owners, BTL investors and improve economic efficiency, while also moderating house prices without cratering the banks. And that's just on Monday morning
p.s. A house is absolutely a home, and should never be viewed as an investment. Strictly speaking it's a liability not an asset...0 -
Fantastic! I'm more of an antiquarian book/bound manuscript man myself, but that includes accounts, commonplace books etc. Early banking history is a tremendously popular area right now.Charles said:
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...Mortimer said:
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
Let me know if you ever need anyone to bounce questions off - I might not be the right person, but will know who is.
0 -
Hitting BTL further would be less popular than stuffing foreign property owners for some extra wedge. Wallop them first.Charles said:
I agree - I'd probably look at a PPR exemption, possibly, but not do it on foreign residency (so BTL gets hit as well)Casino_Royale said:
Charging non-resident foreign property owners on property assets above the UK average property value at 1% a year would be politically popular IMHO.Charles said:
Of course - and as @rcs1000 said it would be very unpopular.watford30 said:
Good luck with that.Charles said:
I would probably go with everyone.
Total value of UK residential stock is around £5 trillion. A 1% tax yields £50bn per year
Council tax is £30bn in total. Let's assume that 50% of that is local services, and 50% is central government mandated obligations. I'd fund the latter centrally.
Stamp duty is £10bn, so I'd halve that, with the aim of making sure that the average house is basically tax free to buy (but, of course, comes with a 1% annual liability i.e. around £2,500)
That gives you £30bn to play with
Roughly speaking I'd allocate £10bn to deficit reduction and then £20bn to targeted tax/cost of living reductions. e.g. employee NICs, fuel duty, elimination of the mandated green charges on fuel bills, etc.
Basically the aim is to move the burden of taxation from economically productive functions to rentier/asset gathering activities.
Average house price is around £275,000, and for the South East it's £500K.
No government is going to go ahead with tax rises of £2750 pa, nor another £5K year plus in the South East on someone purely for owning their house, without slashing that individual's tax substantially elsewhere or facing annihilation at the ballot box.
I know you'll beg to differ, but most people view where they live as a home, not an asset.
And these suggestions were just off the top of my head, but the aim of reducing various taxes would be to try and balance out the tax rises with the reductions.
Another way to look at it, for instance, would be to have a £200K tax free band on principle private residences, for example, although this would reduce the tax take significantly.
I'm trying to find a way to hit foreign owners, BTL investors and improve economic efficiency, while also moderating house prices without cratering the banks. And that's just on Monday morning
p.s. A house is absolutely a home, and should never be viewed as an investment. Strictly speaking it's a liability not an asset...
And go one step further - include anyone holding UK property through a foreign vehicle for tax purposes. And perhaps consider those holding property through trusts.0 -
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.Charles said:We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.0 -
If you want to PM me, I can get you in touch with our archivist.Mortimer said:
Fantastic! I'm more of an antiquarian book/bound manuscript man myself, but that includes accounts, commonplace books etc. Early banking history is a tremendously popular area right now.Charles said:
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...Mortimer said:
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
Let me know if you ever need anyone to bounce questions off - I might not be the right person, but will know who is.
Our main paperwork is 300+ years of accounts...0 -
Win bakeoff ?richardDodd said:Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
0 -
UK property held through foreign vehicles is already addressed through the Envelope Taxwatford30 said:
Hitting BTL further would be less popular than stuffing foreign property owners for some extra wedge. Wallop them first.Charles said:
I agree - I'd probably look at a PPR exemption, possibly, but not do it on foreign residency (so BTL gets hit as well)
And go one step further - include anyone holding UK property through a foreign vehicle for tax purposes. And perhaps consider those holding property through trusts.
0 -
It's a strange question.TGOHF said:
Win bakeoff ?richardDodd said:Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
What has Islam done more than Muslims?
What can we say Christianity has done rather than Christians?0 -
We gave the Bank of England a 300th birthday present of a pamphlet arguing that it was a bad idea to set one up as it would only result in excessive government debt, inflation and devaluation...Richard_Nabavi said:
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.Charles said:We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.0 -
Safe in the knowledge that you will never be bright enough to read the BeanoTGOHF said:
When you are a bit older malc - you can move onto a funnier Scottish comic line the Beano.malcolmg said:Good education for the frothers on here.
http://www.thenational.scot/cartoon/the-cult.360 -
I would say "Don't give up your day job" but there is zero chance of you having one.watford30 said:
It's comes as no surprise that your idea of 'education' is reading a comic.malcolmg said:Good education for the frothers on here.
http://www.thenational.scot/cartoon/the-cult.360 -
I'd tend to agree, although the reality is with, say Council Tax that if you can't afford it and you have no way of increasing your income then you have to sell and move, so the practice - if not the principle as such - is already there.Charles said:
We do actually assign a value to heritage assets, including paperwork, in our balance sheet. But the issue is with the forced sale provision, nothing else.david_herdson said:
Firstly, I don't hold with a wealth tax other than death duties, which is more equivalent to an income tax.watford30 said:
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
However, that said, if historic documents are held privately then yes, they should be taxed the same as anything else. However, as with other items of national value or significance, one option would be to enable any documents in that position which are catalogued and made publicly available on demand (subject to reasonable notice), to be tax-free as essentially held in trust for the nation.
But that said, I'd go back to my earlier suggestion that for items of historic value there should be some means of excluding them from liability providing that they're made available for the public. For artworks, that might be a permanent loan to galleries unless there's access at source. For documents, it might be a scheme administered by the British Library where the documents are made available for research.
I agree that you wouldn't want forced sale (still less, destruction) but at the same time, if this was a route gone down - and for all sorts of reasons, it'd be a bad idea - then an asset is an asset.0 -
That's a brilliant story!Richard_Nabavi said:
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.Charles said:We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.0 -
That's also a brilliant story!Charles said:
We gave the Bank of England a 300th birthday present of a pamphlet arguing that it was a bad idea to set one up as it would only result in excessive government debt, inflation and devaluation...Richard_Nabavi said:
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.Charles said:We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.0 -
Lol!!!Charles said:
We gave the Bank of England a 300th birthday present of a pamphlet arguing that it was a bad idea to set one up as it would only result in excessive government debt, inflation and devaluation...Richard_Nabavi said:
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.Charles said:We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.0 -
Islam is a religion not an individual. What has Christianity done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years? Or Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc?richardDodd said:Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
0 -
There are ways round it though aren't there, with de-enveloping, converting corporate structures into offshore trusts etc.Charles said:
UK property held through foreign vehicles is already addressed through the Envelope Taxwatford30 said:
Hitting BTL further would be less popular than stuffing foreign property owners for some extra wedge. Wallop them first.Charles said:
I agree - I'd probably look at a PPR exemption, possibly, but not do it on foreign residency (so BTL gets hit as well)
And go one step further - include anyone holding UK property through a foreign vehicle for tax purposes. And perhaps consider those holding property through trusts.0 -
I think the problem is not what Islam has done but rather that having a traditional religion in a country and introducing a fast growing new (to the country) religion causes the same tensions that any insurgency cause the establishmentTheWhiteRabbit said:
It's a strange question.TGOHF said:
Win bakeoff ?richardDodd said:Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
What has Islam done more than Muslims?
What can we say Christianity has done rather than Christians?
0 -
I was thinking about that the other day. I think in fairness he also said "October" so he has a few days left but it is not looking good for him. One day he will be right of course. It's just a matter of time.rcs1000 said:Does anyone know where Hunchman is? The second global sovereign debt crisis was due to have kicked off on the 7th of October at 3:11pm...
0 -
The problem with islam is it still insists on the right to primacy.
Other religions gave up the right to primacy over secular law long ago.0 -
PT Christianity has been long established in the UK and it is recognised as a Christian country, its benefits or otherwise are well established long before the last 20 years Islam and its Muslim devotees are a recent input into the country,in relative terms. I just wondered if there had been any visual or cultural benefits to the long established Christian population..0
-
-
Religion has helped shape history but in my eyes it is an irrelevant irritant now. We can disagree but since you are proposing the last 20 years I can't think of what Christianity has done within the last 20 years (as opposed to historically) either.richardDodd said:PT Christianity has been long established in the UK and it is recognised as a Christian country, its benefits or otherwise are well established long before the last 20 years Islam and its Muslim devotees are a recent input into the country,in relative terms. I just wondered if there had been any visual or cultural benefits to the long established Christian population..
If you expand to Muslims then many Muslims have contributed a hell of a lot to this country. Some have set up and ran successful businesses, charities, become global leading athletes, become doctors, nurses, lawyers and productive members of every single part of our society.
Not all have of course but that's the same in any group.0 -
Some fantastic antiquarian book/archives stories this morning! Thanks all.0
-
Seconded.Mortimer said:Some fantastic antiquarian book/archives stories this morning! Thanks all.
0 -
Good, it is a shocking injustice to even suggest that even if victorious in court a publication should have to pay costs for both parties. Terrible attack on the freedom of the press there that would open the media up to a never ending stream of nuisance lawsuits.Plato_Says said:0 -
Not much point in leaving evidence of what you're trying to avoid (evade?) tax on.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure there is any evidence that the French own lots of gold bars to avoid the wealth tax.TGOHF said:
Not if you hid them - or wore them. Who is going to come snooping around the jewellery boxes of the nation ?Pulpstar said:
Isn't buying gold the last thing you'd do if you were taxed on assetsTGOHF said:
Disgusting idea that would lead to massive avoidance - buy gold bars and stick in a deposit box.rcs1000 said:watford30 said:
Good luck with that.
Average house price is around £275,000, and for the South East it's £500K.
No government is going to go ahead with tax rises of £2750 pa, nor another £5K year plus in the South East on someone purely for owning their house, without slashing tax elsewhere or facing annihilation at the ballot box.
I know you'll beg to differ, but most people view where they live as a home, not an asset.
I would personally go with the French system of an annual wealth tax, as that would similarly discourage people from owning non-productive assets, and would therefore encourage them to be sold to people who did use them.
I do realise that none of this is politically acceptable.
Open up the top end of the council tax by a band or two - politically achievable and minimal effort to value a few top end properties.
?0 -
PT Those successful people you cite are individuals and are pursuing their chosen careers which appear to have very little to do with the teachings of Islam..We know what Christianity has brought to the UK over many centuries and it now appears to have settled down into an orderly religion which seems to suit most of the population...but what has the religion of Islam brought to the country ..and to the country's benefit0
-
Look at the history of all the religions, there's some murky stuff in all of them.richardDodd said:PT Those successful people you cite are individuals and are pursuing their chosen careers which appear to have very little to do with the teachings of Islam..We know what Christianity has brought to the UK over many centuries and it now appears to have settled down into an orderly religion which seems to suit most of the population...but what has the religion of Islam brought to the country ..and to the country's benefit
0 -
So you'd be happy with a tax on hovels. I'm sure you would be in a minority of house owners of any stripe holding that view.Charles said:
Mansion taxes are a bad idea because of the threshold effect, not because of the principle of taxing property moreReggieCide said:
Isn't this a mansion tax on hovels too?rcs1000 said:
From a straight economics basis, that is absolutely the right way forward.Charles said:
I would probably go with everyone.watford30 said:
For Foreign owners, or everyone else?Charles said:
I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.Casino_Royale said:
He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.Charles said:
It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawalCasino_Royale said:On topic, I suspect Osborne will do some mild smoothing of the withdrawal of tax credits over the remainder of this parliament such that the cuts kick in only as the rises in the minimum wage do.
That will, of course, put pressure on other budgets. He may slow the rate of the 40p tax cut - threshold increase - to £50k a year to partially compensate.
But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
I suppose he could up the non-doms fee. I'm not sure what easy targets are left there. Stamp duty is as high as it really can be at the top-end of the market. Any more raids on dividend income would be likely to be counterproductive, and probably the same with the banking levy.
I would personally like to see measures to stop non-residents using UK property as a global bank account.
Total value of UK residential stock is around £5 trillion. A 1% tax yields £50bn per year
Council tax is £30bn in total. Let's assume that 50% of that is local services, and 50% is central government mandated obligations. I'd fund the latter centrally.
Stamp duty is £10bn, so I'd halve that, with the aim of making sure that the average house is basically tax free to buy (but, of course, comes with a 1% annual liability i.e. around £2,500)
That gives you £30bn to play with
Roughly speaking I'd allocate £10bn to deficit reduction and then £20bn to targeted tax/cost of living reductions. e.g. employee NICs, fuel duty, elimination of the mandated green charges on fuel bills, etc.
Basically the aim is to move the burden of taxation from economically productive functions to rentier/asset gathering activities.
Of course, it would be unpopular with a lot of people.0 -
logical song .. I agree entirely..but that does not answer the question....0
-
Excellent indeed. Freedom of the press is one of the most fundamental signs of democracy. It is shameful that we came so close to legislating against that freedom.Plato_Says said:0 -
There aren't many rags from north of Carlisle that give Bears positive coverage malc so the Beano is essential reading IMHO.malcolmg said:
Safe in the knowledge that you will never be bright enough to read the BeanoTGOHF said:
When you are a bit older malc - you can move onto a funnier Scottish comic line the Beano.malcolmg said:Good education for the frothers on here.
http://www.thenational.scot/cartoon/the-cult.36
0 -
supplement our cricketing baseTGOHF said:
Win bakeoff ?richardDodd said:Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
0 -
Of course an individuals actions are their own that is a truism and is the same to everyone.richardDodd said:PT Those successful people you cite are individuals and are pursuing their chosen careers which appear to have very little to do with the teachings of Islam..We know what Christianity has brought to the UK over many centuries and it now appears to have settled down into an orderly religion which seems to suit most of the population...but what has the religion of Islam brought to the country ..and to the country's benefit
You're asking an impossible to answer question if you ascribe all positives to the individuals and all negatives to the religion then you're setting up a rhetorical question.0 -
The French are expert at hiding wealth from prying eyes.ReggieCide said:
Not much point in leaving evidence of what you're trying to avoid (evade?) tax on.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure there is any evidence that the French own lots of gold bars to avoid the wealth tax.TGOHF said:
Not if you hid them - or wore them. Who is going to come snooping around the jewellery boxes of the nation ?Pulpstar said:
Isn't buying gold the last thing you'd do if you were taxed on assetsTGOHF said:
Disgusting idea that would lead to massive avoidance - buy gold bars and stick in a deposit box.rcs1000 said:watford30 said:
Good luck with that.
Average house price is around £275,000, and for the South East it's £500K.
No government is going to go ahead with tax rises of £2750 pa, nor another £5K year plus in the South East on someone purely for owning their house, without slashing tax elsewhere or facing annihilation at the ballot box.
I know you'll beg to differ, but most people view where they live as a home, not an asset.
I would personally go with the French system of an annual wealth tax, as that would similarly discourage people from owning non-productive assets, and would therefore encourage them to be sold to people who did use them.
I do realise that none of this is politically acceptable.
Open up the top end of the council tax by a band or two - politically achievable and minimal effort to value a few top end properties. ?0 -
What do you call Council Tax?ReggieCide said:
So you'd be happy with a tax on hovels. I'm sure you would be in a minority of house owners of any stripe holding that view.Charles said:
Mansion taxes are a bad idea because of the threshold effect, not because of the principle of taxing property moreReggieCide said:Isn't this a mansion tax on hovels too?
0 -
PT I have not ascribed any negatives to the religion... indeed, I asked for positive comments...seems there are not many forthcoming..0
-
No they did come forth you just didn't accept them.richardDodd said:PT I have not ascribed any negatives to the religion... indeed, I asked for positive comments...seems there are not many forthcoming..
0 -
Council TaxPhilip_Thompson said:
What do you call Council Tax?ReggieCide said:
So you'd be happy with a tax on hovels. I'm sure you would be in a minority of house owners of any stripe holding that view.Charles said:
Mansion taxes are a bad idea because of the threshold effect, not because of the principle of taxing property moreReggieCide said:Isn't this a mansion tax on hovels too?
0 -
Rashid - yes, Moeen - no.ReggieCide said:
supplement our cricketing baseTGOHF said:
Win bakeoff ?richardDodd said:Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
0 -
PT What where they..0
-
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever0
-
Isam different argument and nothing wrong with it .. but what has the Muslim Religion done in the UK to benefit the incumbent population of the UK..Simple question...0
-
That must be fascinating to see, but what is meant by 'modern era'? Were some form of cheques used much earlier in history, before modern banking?Charles said:
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...Mortimer said:
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.Charles said:
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?edmundintokyo said:
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.Charles said:
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)0 -
You asked about the contribution of "Islam and its Muslim devotees" and the responses from multiple people have included: winning bake off, supplementing our cricket base, and people who have set up and ran successful businesses, charities, become global leading athletes, become doctors, nurses, lawyers and productive members of every single part of our societyrichardDodd said:PT What where they..
That is what its devotees have brought to the country. Accept it or not, ask them how their religion has affected what they've brought to us, up to you. But asked and answered.0 -
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.isam said:It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.0 -
PT Bollox.. you are confusing individuals with the influence of a major world religion on the population of the UK..running a race and doing some baking on a pisspoor TV show amounts to nothing in the real world..0
-
You asked about its adherents, these are its adherents. Don't ask the question if you wont' accept the answer. Up to you if you think athletics and bake off etc amount nothing at all in the real world, I suspect they bring happiness and entertainment to millions in this country and last I checked entertainment and happiness are not nothing.richardDodd said:PT Bollox.. you are confusing individuals with the influence of a major world religion on the population of the UK..running a race and doing some baking on a pisspoor TV show amounts to nothing in the real world..
But I suppose in your eyes doctors, nurses, teachers, businesses leaders and the other examples also amount to nothing?0 -
Decades, yes. Centuries, no. In most countries, 'peace' only existed because one side imposed a dominance that was tantamount to, and in some places actually, a monopoly won by the sword and maintained by it (in the hand of the state).Philip_Thompson said:
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.isam said:It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
...0 -
Whatever your views on islam, some of its representatives seem very unhappy at the government's new anti extremist 'crackdown'
I agree. It's bullsh*t.0 -
I'm an agnostic.Philip_Thompson said:
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.isam said:It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
0
