Mansion tax

cambsno

cambsno

Messages
20,408
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
What a stupid idea this is! Trying to keep politics out of it, it seems a lot of hassle to give each family a £100 a year tax saving. What's £100 a year in the whole scheme of things??? Surely if you want to do that you simply add say 0.5 or 1% to income tax, or stamp duty at houses costing more than X? Far simpler to administer. How do you know what properties are 2m in value?
 
cambsno said:
What a stupid idea this is! Trying to keep politics out of it, it seems a lot of hassle to give each family a £100 a year tax saving. What's £100 a year in the whole scheme of things??? Surely if you want to do that you simply add say 0.5 or 1% to income tax, or stamp duty at houses costing more than X? Far simpler to administer. How do you know what properties are 2m in value?
Click to expand...

Land registry sales results to determine the sale price, anything else would be a guess I would have thought. Something that may or may not be achieved.
 
cambsno said:
What a stupid idea this is! Trying to keep politics out of it, it seems a lot of hassle to give each family a £100 a year tax saving. What's £100 a year in the whole scheme of things??? Surely if you want to do that you simply add say 0.5 or 1% to income tax, or stamp duty at houses costing more than X? Far simpler to administer. How do you know what properties are 2m in value?
Click to expand...

They do it so they can have a nice new department of civil servants to collect it. They need to be closing stupid departments not creating them. Can't car tax be adsorbed into fuel duty? The more you drive the more you pay? Again Can't national insurance be merged to income tax? Its just crazy it just stealth tactics, if it was just taken from us in 1 or 2 taxes we all would realise how much they taking off us!
 
Last edited:
I'd rather they focused on more big corporations and the party cronies paying tax.
 
rjbell said:
They do it so they can have a nice new department of civil servants to collect it. They need to be closing stupid departments not creating them. Can't car tax be adsorbed into fuel duty? The more you drive the more you pay? Again Can't national insurance be merged to income tax? Its just crazy it just stealth tactics, if it was just taken from us in 1 or 2 taxes we all would realise how much they taking off us!
Click to expand...

Agree, but, do u think it would b fair? For the sake of argument lets say road tax cut to zero would be 1bn, I bet you any increase in duty would be a lot more than 1bn!!!

See no reason to have ni and tax. Just have tax!
 
cambsno said:
Agree, but, do u think it would b fair? For the sake of argument lets say road tax cut to zero would be 1bn, I bet you any increase in duty would be a lot more than 1bn!!!

See no reason to have ni and tax. Just have tax!
Click to expand...

I am fully retired and not working, I pay income tax on my private pension, state pension and savings interest but I do not pay National Insurance.
Those in power who have suggested a simplification by combining Income Tax & NI have said, after prompting, that there would be adjustments made for pensioners and those who are not working but have a taxable income, thereby complicating the simplified proposal :shrug:

Mansion tax just seems an idea to appeal to some voters who think that the rich should suffer, actually implementing it would not be down to the politicians of course, they don't normally worry about the practicalities of their ideas.
 
Last edited:
Suvv said:
I am fully retired and not working, I pay income tax on my private pension, state pension and savings interest but I do not pay National Insurance.
Those in power who have suggested a simplification by combining Income Tax & NI have said, after prompting, that there would be adjustments made for pensioners and those who are not working but have a taxable income, thereby complicating the simplified proposal :shrug:

Mansion tax just seems an idea to appeal to some voters who think that the rich should suffer, actually implementing it would not be down to the politicians of course, they don't normally worry about the practicalities of their ideas.
Click to expand...

You don't pay income tax on state pension do you. I didn't think that pensions were taxable either.
 
cambsno said:
You don't pay income tax on state pension do you. I didn't think that pensions were taxable either.
Click to expand...
Oh yes we do, Oh yes they are!
 
Private and company pensions aren't taxed on the way in, they're taxed on the way out. The state pension is counted as part of your income, so if the combination of all your pensions exceeds your personal allowance it's taxed as income. You don't pay national insurance on pension income though. What would you be insuring against?
 
wontolla said:
Oh yes we do, Oh yes they are!
Click to expand...

Have to say, at times I think why bother paying into a pension and trying to work hard and save. When I a 80 and need to go into a home I will have to give my savings up and sell my house so I can be next door to someone who has not worked at all!
 
It's worse than that. People who invest for the Autumn of their lives, either through pensions or other investments, had paid tax on the income they used to make the investment in the first place - then are taxed on the income from that investment. Then, of course, taxed again when that income is spent. Taxed three times - and I haven't mentioned duty on drink and fuel.

At least our glorious Deputy Leader has some policies, barmy that they are, whereas t'other lot are devoid of policies.
 
Suvv said:
I am fully retired and not working, I pay income tax on my private pension, state pension and savings interest but I do not pay National Insurance.
Those in power who have suggested a simplification by combining Income Tax & NI have said, after prompting, that there would be adjustments made for pensioners and those who are not working but have a taxable income, thereby complicating the simplified proposal :shrug:

Mansion tax just seems an idea to appeal to some voters who think that the rich should suffer, actually implementing it would not be down to the politicians of course, they don't normally worry about the practicalities of their ideas.
Click to expand...

Not sure it would be as complicated as the current system. We already have different tax codes, you just create another for pensioners.
 
the more well off should pay more so the not so well off pay less. seems fair to me They should tax the oil companies more so they can bring the cost of petrol down. high petrol prices has caused the economic damage
 
POAH said:
the more well off should pay more so the not so well off pay less. seems fair to me They should tax the oil companies more so they can bring the cost of petrol down. high petrol prices has caused the economic damage
Click to expand...

If u tax oil companies more they will raise prices? Most fuel revenue goes to government.
 
I read today the Lib Dems want to tax people on their possessions too. I had to check it wasn't April the 1st when I read it and that I hadn't slept through half of Feb and all of March.
 
nilagin said:
I read today the Lib Dems want to tax people on their possessions too. I had to check it wasn't April the 1st when I read it and that I hadn't slept through half of Feb and all of March.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry lib dems before the coalition had potential of winning an election in my life time gaining ground every time. They never will now.
 
nilagin said:
I read today the Lib Dems want to tax people on their possessions too. I had to check it wasn't April the 1st when I read it and that I hadn't slept through half of Feb and all of March.
Click to expand...

Another joke. Just stop supporting spongers. Like the bloke in today's paper, 44, who has never worked. Managed to have 4 kids though and spends his day watching his big tv and playing computer games.
 
cambsno said:
Another joke. Just stop supporting spongers. Like the bloke in today's paper, 44, who has never worked. Managed to have 4 kids though and spends his day watching his big tv and playing computer games.
Click to expand...

There are 4 million adults in th uk who have never done a days work in there life. Even more shocking than that is 250k of them are pensioners.
 
rjbell said:
There are 4 million adults in th uk who have never done a days work in there life. Even more shocking than that is 250k of them are pensioners.
Click to expand...

I call BS, where's a credible reference to support that?
 
rjbell said:
There are 4 million adults in th uk who have never done a days work in there life. Even more shocking than that is 250k of them are pensioners.
Click to expand...

Quote-

"More than a quarter of those who have never earned a living are aged between 25 to 64, and 205,000 over 65s had never worked before becoming pensioners."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ILLION-adults-worked-lives.html#ixzz2LBj4raq3

Not quite as bad as you said!
And this includes disabled people who cannot work so nowhere near as bad as headline!
​
 
Last edited:
TriggerHappy said:
Good, as long as you're forming and sharing opinions based on solid evidence :LOL:
Click to expand...

Digging a bit deeper I think the numbers are correct for 4 million adults have not worked, but lots have got reasons for not working there not just sitting at home on the dole.
 
wontolla said:
Quote-

"More than a quarter of those who have never earned a living are aged between 25 to 64, and 205,000 over 65s had never worked before becoming pensioners."
Click to expand...

Found a break down of the stats here: http://fullfact.org/factchecks/never_worked_millions-28762

The data does indeed show that between October 2011 and September 2012, 3.9 million people had never worked in their lives. Unsurprisingly, more than two thirds of them - 2.7 million - are under 25s.
Click to expand...

We found that, as expected, 1.9 million people who have never worked are students.
Click to expand...
 
rjbell said:
Digging a bit deeper I think the numbers are correct for 4 million adults have not worked, but lots have got reasons for not working there not just sitting at home on the dole.
Click to expand...

Yep, disabled folk are part of that statistic.

Back to the OP....what is a mansion?

Can you imagine us going back to the window tax system? - first dibs on 2 millions bricks and a couple of brickie gangs!
 
cambsno said:
Another joke. Just stop supporting spongers. Like the bloke in today's paper, 44, who has never worked. Managed to have 4 kids though and spends his day watching his big tv and playing computer games.
Click to expand...

In a life thousands of years ago, I, accompanied by a bailiff used to have to go visit debtors to try to obtain recompense for moneys which had passed through the debtors hands. I noticed that almost without exception, the debtors owned a) a huge wide screen tv, and b) a relatively new car. The rest of the house often consisted of orange boxes for furniture and the food cupboards were empty except for a tin of beans. It gave me a disturbing insight into the human psyche.
 
cambsno said:
If u tax oil companies more they will raise prices? Most fuel revenue goes to government.
Click to expand...

obviously it would be more complecated than just upping the tax on the companies but really the people making vulgar profits can afford to pay more.
 
2blue4u said:
It's worse than that. People who invest for the Autumn of their lives, either through pensions or other investments, had paid tax on the income they used to make the investment in the first place - then are taxed on the income from that investment. Then, of course, taxed again when that income is spent. Taxed three times - and I haven't mentioned duty on drink and fuel.

At least our glorious Deputy Leader has some policies, barmy that they are, whereas t'other lot are devoid of policies.
Click to expand...

You'd only pay tax on that investment if (in next tax year) you put more than £50K/annum into your pension pot...It used to be £255K/annum. So whilst you are correct that you'd be paying tax on the income to invest, it actually only affects about 100,000 people in the UK...Chances are not many photographers put away more than £255K per annum in their pension pot :D
 
I'm interested in what level people think a person changes from successful to rich (what level of income) and why the rich should pay more for the same services, which is at the end of the day what a tax is.

Why is it that people who wok hard and earn a higher wage should be punished by a higher tax burden? And please no stupid "because they can afford it" answers.
 
barneyrubble said:
I'm interested in what level people think a person changes from successful to rich (what level of income) and why the rich should pay more for the same services, which is at the end of the day what a tax is.

Why is it that people who wok hard and earn a higher wage should be punished by a higher tax burden? And please no stupid "because they can afford it" answers.
Click to expand...

I'm with you mate.
 
barneyrubble said:
I'm interested in what level people think a person changes from successful to rich (what level of income) and why the rich should pay more for the same services, which is at the end of the day what a tax is.

Why is it that people who wok hard and earn a higher wage should be punished by a higher tax burden? And please no stupid "because they can afford it" answers.
Click to expand...

What successful person got there on their own with no help? High earners benefit from infrastructure, research, teaching etc etc. There are plenty of hard working people out there who aren't high earners too. When you have Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, saying he and his super rich friends should pay more then I think there's something in it.
 
Laudrup said:
What successful person got there on their own with no help? High earners benefit from infrastructure, research, teaching etc etc. There are plenty of hard working people out there who aren't high earners too. When you have Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, saying he and his super rich friends should pay more then I think there's something in it.
Click to expand...

You missed the point of the question. Why should they pay more? They are getting exactly the same from the govt as everyone else.

And what level - please answer that one?
 
Laudrup said:
What successful person got there on their own with no help? High earners benefit from infrastructure, research, teaching etc etc. There are plenty of hard working people out there who aren't high earners too. When you have Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, saying he and his super rich friends should pay more then I think there's something in it.
Click to expand...

Super rich like Buffett is something different entirely. Its absolutely obscene the wealth of the top 5-10% they could solve the third world debts instantly, i don't know how they can sleep at night.

Sourced from Wikipedia: A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total.
 
Last edited:
barneyrubble said:
You missed the point of the question. Why should they pay more? They are getting exactly the same from the govt as everyone else.

And what level - please answer that one?
Click to expand...

You missed the point of the answer. They didn't get there on their own so when they do become rich you pay back more. The rich hoarding their wealth that society helped them build isn't a good thing.

As for 'successful' to 'rich' I don't understand where you expect the line to be drawn? £100k a year is 'successful' but £101k a year is 'rich'?
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
You missed the point of the answer. They didn't get there on their own so when they do become rich you pay back more. The rich hoarding their wealth that society helped them build isn't a good thing.

As for 'successful' to 'rich' I don't understand where you expect the line to be drawn? £100k a year is 'successful' but £101k a year is 'rich'?
Click to expand...

I would say £100k is nowhere near rich. Tax years 13-14 we will be paying 40% on earnings over £32k that's not in the slightest bit successful living in south Wales living in London you will be struggling its really unfair.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
They didn't get there on their own so when they do become rich you pay back more. The rich hoarding their wealth that society helped them build isn't a good thing.
Click to expand...
I'm puzzled by this statement. What has society got to do with how someone manages to build their wealth?:thinking:
 
Laudrup said:
You missed the point of the answer. They didn't get there on their own so when they do become rich you pay back more. The rich hoarding their wealth that society helped them build isn't a good thing.

As for 'successful' to 'rich' I don't understand where you expect the line to be drawn? £100k a year is 'successful' but £101k a year is 'rich'?
Click to expand...


Thats gibberish i'm afraid.

Everyone has the same help from the government - or access to it at least.

So why should the rich pay more. What specifics do the rich get that the "less rich" dont.

As for drawing the line - thats what I'm asking you. At what level should people pay more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top