Mansion Tax

[Ashtonian]

I Suppose it is one of those things that is a rich vs poor debate.

Being 'poor' then yeah i would support it all the way if it added more money into the system. The conservative government always have and are currently taxing the poor to pay for things and sadly that will carry on whilst they are in charge. Taxing the rich that doesnt get affected by the poor taxes would be much fairer to the sytem.

But then if i worked hard my life and had this big house to show for it i would be aggrieved that the poor of the country want to take 12000 more off me. I know how the tax system works and it is amazing how much the rich do get taxed. used to work with someone who earned lime 50 odd grand a year and it was amzing the proportion they got taken off them compared to mine.

So yeah, stick my in a class and theres your answer, put me in the middle and i wouldnt care either way.

 

[Blue 1]

To be fair, that's only because Labour left a deficit in the first place. He hasn't just borrowed loads for a laugh. So it's more of a criticism of Labour than Osborne.

It's a criticism of both.

 

[Mrk]

It's a criticism of both.

Indeed - I wanted Osborne to cut the deficit much faster too.

 

[Blue 1]

Indeed - I wanted Osborne to cut the deficit much faster too.

I see what you did there. Hahahaha.

 

[Milk]

Where there's a scheme, there is always a schemer .....


IF I lived in a £2m house (which I don't), & Millibean got elected (Boo, Hiss - Vote Loony) I would divide my £2m house in to discrete flats for my dear old mum and my dear old son (none of which would actually live with me ...) and lo, each flat would be "only" worth £750k or so. Job done.

 

[The Cowboy]

I Suppose it is one of those things that is a rich vs poor debate.

Being 'poor' then yeah i would support it all the way if it added more money into the system. The conservative government always have and are currently taxing the poor to pay for things and sadly that will carry on whilst they are in charge. Taxing the rich that doesnt get affected by the poor taxes would be much fairer to the sytem.

But then if i worked hard my life and had this big house to show for it i would be aggrieved that the poor of the country want to take 12000 more off me. I know how the tax system works and it is amazing how much the rich do get taxed. used to work with someone who earned lime 50 odd grand a year and it was amzing the proportion they got taken off them compared to mine.

So yeah, stick my in a class and theres your answer, put me in the middle and i wouldnt care either way.

How exactly are the Tories taxing the poor to pay for things?

As to your latter point, the Rich (with a capital R) have ways and means of reducing their tax liability. The Poor just don't pay that much tax, and are able to claim more benefits. The moderately well-off, the ones who earn in the 50k bracket, get stiffed, as they don't have the mechanisms available to them to avoid tax, yet are not applicable for any benefits (and are now getting stung for the child benefit clawback too).

Makes you wonder what is the point of trying to get on in the world.

 

[Mrk]

I Suppose it is one of those things that is a rich vs poor debate.

Being 'poor' then yeah i would support it all the way if it added more money into the system. The conservative government always have and are currently taxing the poor to pay for things and sadly that will carry on whilst they are in charge. Taxing the rich that doesnt get affected by the poor taxes would be much fairer to the sytem.

Think you're getting them confused with Labour.

 

[Toffeelover]

Agree alot of intelligent debate from all viewpoints on here of late!. I respect the opinions of anyone who engages in serious debate regardless of their ideology.

It's basically the opposite of the bedroom tax, a form of class warfare against the rich. Without doubt it draws a clear line in the sand between Lab and Cons. Tory MPs outraged by this policy yet happy to back the bedroom tax speaks volumes in my eyes.

Very clever by Labour, the £2 million + house price mark has been carefully chosen, it's just above the 'Middle England' bracket of prices (Therefore wont have any effect on them).

An awful lot has been made about this being 'a tax on London' because of the amount of homes it would effect there which irks me a little. The reason why the country is failing in the first place is because of the disproportionate concentration of wealth in the south east. One big problem I think they'll face is how to impliment it, house prices fluctuate daily, even within the same street there are considerable differences. It's either line the pockets of estate agents to produce valuations or completely overhaul the council tax bracket system - either way it'll be costly

There is a reason why house prices are higher in London. It is because the city is a huge financial hub attracting wealth from all over the world. In terms of economy, jobs, tax, London is so big to do anything that would endanger this massive source of Government funds would be like shooting oneself in the foot. Sorry Chewee it is not so clever by Labour it is just another vote catching gimmick that appeals to voters perhaps such as yourself, which will not produce the kind of money they are seeking. It is going to require many more civil servant jobs, in fact probably a whole new department! There are many in that region and in fact around the country who are not cash but asset rich because they have been in such properties their whole lives. The whole concept put forward by Ed is lacking in methodology.

A bit like the so called energy freeze ( which by the way was not mentioned at conference), another vote catching gimmick but what has never been made clear is what happens to prices at the end of the freeze when no one has budgeted for the inevitable price increase.

Coming out with bits and pieces like Ed is doing is no way to set about winning the election. We need properly thought out policies that are presented with flesh on the bones not good sounding nibbles.

 

[Toffeelover]

How exactly are the Tories taxing the poor to pay for things?

As to your latter point, the Rich (with a capital R) have ways and means of reducing their tax liability. The Poor just don't pay that much tax, and are able to claim more benefits. The moderately well-off, the ones who earn in the 50k bracket, get stiffed, as they don't have the mechanisms available to them to avoid tax, yet are not applicable for any benefits (and are now getting stung for the child benefit clawback too).

Makes you wonder what is the point of trying to get on in the world.

You are right Cowboy, it is that middle group that gets battered especially by the low threshold to 40%

 

[Toffeelover]

Think you're getting them confused with Labour.

Well as no doubt many have realised I am a pensioner as is my wife. When Brown though he was being clever and removed the 10% band and pushed everyone of us including the low paid we were hit hard. It took darling 6 months to correct this blunder and borrow 5 billion to fix it. Something of course that the Labour politicians these days never lok back on let alone refer to it.

In 2010 when Labour lost the election the amount a person could earn before tax was 6475 it is now 10500, an increase of 4025 in 4 years a tax saving of £800 pa. When Labour won in 1997 the free pay allowance was 4100 so in 15 years Labour had increased it by 2375. Did some one say somewhere Labour do not tax the poor the Tories do.

 

[Ashtonian]

How exactly are the Tories taxing the poor to pay for things?

As to your latter point, the Rich (with a capital R) have ways and means of reducing their tax liability. The Poor just don't pay that much tax, and are able to claim more benefits. The moderately well-off, the ones who earn in the 50k bracket, get stiffed, as they don't have the mechanisms available to them to avoid tax, yet are not applicable for any benefits (and are now getting stung for the child benefit clawback too).

Makes you wonder what is the point of trying to get on in the world.

Think you're getting them confused with Labour.

Ok to explain my point.


Pastry tax, bedroom tax, big business increasing prices, big corporations / utilities raising prices above the actual inflation, VAT, Alcohol price inrease, Tobacco increase

To name a few. all affect the poor more than the rich because they are designed to. And before i get the paranoid remarks i will prove it.

Pastry tax - these types of food attract the lower classes. Not saying noone else eats them, just that as they are cheap and quick more working class will eat there.

bedroom tax- Doesnt affect 10-12 bedroom houses oddly. I know there is an issue about it and a thread but top and bottom of it telling poor people to move house because they dont need that extra room.

big business increasing prices-Puts money in the governments pockets through their own little charges for things

big corporations / utilities raising prices above the actual inflation- The poor go cold, the rich dont. Odd that, especially as there is a negative affect to them putting the prices up.

VAT, Alcohol price increase- everyone likes a drink but affects the pocket of the poor more than the rich. And its the poor that use it for a good time after working dead end jobs. Generalisation there i know but make more money off what the poor love, like the 1800's

Tobacco increase- This is the biggest lie of them all. It is done under the guise of anti smoking lobbists. Except if everyone stopped smoking the government would lose billions. So by putting the price up more and more it makes people pay the extra taxes on the product and who will notice the 50p increase on their ciggies? The poor.

 

[The Cowboy]

Ok to explain my point.


Pastry tax, bedroom tax, big business increasing prices, big corporations / utilities raising prices above the actual inflation, VAT, Alcohol price inrease, Tobacco increase

To name a few. all affect the poor more than the rich because they are designed to. And before i get the paranoid remarks i will prove it.

Pastry tax - these types of food attract the lower classes. Not saying noone else eats them, just that as they are cheap and quick more working class will eat there.

bedroom tax- Doesnt affect 10-12 bedroom houses oddly. I know there is an issue about it and a thread but top and bottom of it telling poor people to move house because they dont need that extra room.

big business increasing prices-Puts money in the governments pockets through their own little charges for things

big corporations / utilities raising prices above the actual inflation- The poor go cold, the rich dont. Odd that, especially as there is a negative affect to them putting the prices up.

VAT, Alcohol price increase- everyone likes a drink but affects the pocket of the poor more than the rich. And its the poor that use it for a good time after working dead end jobs. Generalisation there i know but make more money off what the poor love, like the 1800's

Tobacco increase- This is the biggest lie of them all. It is done under the guise of anti smoking lobbists. Except if everyone stopped smoking the government would lose billions. So by putting the price up more and more it makes people pay the extra taxes on the product and who will notice the 50p increase on their ciggies? The poor.

So what you're saying is the Tories put taxes on things that both rich and poor do (or could) consume, but the poor consume more of it so in reality its a tax on the poor. Tinfoil hat stuff, that.

Bedroom 'tax' (I put in inverted commas as it's NOT A TAX): I earn my wage, I have a house that houses my family. I have no spare rooms. Why should someone who doesn't pay for their house have a bigger house than they need when there's more needy families crammed into tiny flats?

 

[Ashtonian]

So what you're saying is the Tories put taxes on things that both rich and poor do (or could) consume, but the poor consume more of it so in reality its a tax on the poor. Tinfoil hat stuff, that.

Bedroom 'tax' (I put in inverted commas as it's NOT A TAX): I earn my wage, I have a house that houses my family. I have no spare rooms. Why should someone who doesn't pay for their house have a bigger house than they need when there's more needy families crammed into tiny flats?

Two points.

First of all it is their home and when the government are telling people who may have lived in that house for years they need to move because of a spare room despite the benefits of them living there then the country fails its people.

Second of all, i know it seems paranoid, but thats the thing with politics, if you have an opinion then no-one else agrees with it

 

[Eggs]

....the objective shouldn't be to tax the wealthy more, it should be to improve the living standards of those less well off. I really feel for youngsters who work so hard and get little reward for their efforts because of the quality of jobs on offer. I work in the biggest government department and I can't remember the last school leaver or graduate we took on. Its a crying shame. These kids can't afford mortgages or cars, give them decent jobs or lose a generation.

 

[Mrk]

So what you're saying is the Tories put taxes on things that both rich and poor do (or could) consume, but the poor consume more of it so in reality its a tax on the poor. Tinfoil hat stuff, that.

Bedroom 'tax' (I put in inverted commas as it's NOT A TAX): I earn my wage, I have a house that houses my family. I have no spare rooms. Why should someone who doesn't pay for their house have a bigger house than they need when there's more needy families crammed into tiny flats?

Further to this, the 'bedroom tax' was actually introduced in 2008 by... *drumroll* - Labour.

Quelle surprise.