Jump to content

All in it together?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems, faced with an option of higher taxes on "the rich" (as in Mansion Tax proposed by the LibDums) or hitting the poor; the Tories have surprisingly chosen to target Housing and other Welfare Benefits; in order to start paying off the deficit. Seems the leopard hasn't changed it's spots. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mansion tax on the face of it may sound like a good idea. However the problem arises when the owners of said "mansions" don't actually have the funds to pay the tax without selling the "mansion" thus depressing the market for "mansions" and defeating the object of the tax. Wealth does not equate to disposable income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the "mansion tax" is the name which blows the "Pavlov's Whistle" for people like Lt Kije and Obs. Just because a property has a nominal value which would be liable to the tax does not mean that the owner of the property has the funds to pay said tax (or that the owner is a Tory :roll: :roll: :roll:)

If such a tax was introduced, owners of properties which fell into the band for it, and did not have the funds, would be forced to sell to raise the funds. As the tax would have to be introduced on a fixed date this would lead to a large number of properties being placed on the market at the same time which would, inevitably, lead to a large drop in the value of the properties. After all who is going to buy a property at a high valuation which is going to mean having to pay a "mansion tax" on top of the purchase price? And the value of property that the idiot politicians (Clegg) intend to be liable for the tax are not castles in Cheshire (although this is the impression they would like to convey) but ordinary semis that have had their values inflated by the past property booms. Incidentally my own modest property would in no way be liable to a "mansion tax" unless they set their sights down below poverty level. This is just more of government's delusion that whatever we own is actually their's, and what we need is what they say we need. Don't let them get away with the daylight robbery they are inflicting on us, vote them all out at the next election, every single corrupt one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mansion tax would only be payable on properties above a certain value, so it would be those properties that would lose value as the owners try to sell them to raise the money to pay the tax. This would not affect the value of property substantially lower than the mansion tax level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are resonably sized detached houses in Chelsea; owned by pensioners who have owned them since the year dot, that will be worth more than the £2 million figure that Vince Cable was banding about..... Doesn't make it a mansion Kije.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you said that Baz, because on the other side they are going to come down on people on benefit instead, and to get at the few cheats they will harm the many on benefit, better to come down on the few in Chelsea than the many genuine on benefit. Sadly the few in Chelsea will be Tory voters, so no pain for them. :wink:

 

The need of the many, out ways the need of the few!!! :wink: Unless your a member of the Tory Party :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can't say I would argue with Osbournes view that jobless kids of 17 leaving home and getting a council flat and benefits should be made to go back home and let their parents pay for them. He did say that there are many many 30 year old workers who still live with their parents that can't afford to move out so why should we fund a growing band of kids who want their independance paid for by the tax payer? The welfare state currently costs over 23 billion a year to fund.... you aint gonna get that from a few millionaires; no matter how much you tax them

 

Got to agree with the overseas aid nonsense being stopped though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some benefits that could be cut, or at least ceased for new claimants - EG: Child benefit, at least for more than one or two kids, if you can't afford kids, don't have them. HB for single Mums, might end career pregnancies. Having said that, the problem in our econonomy is that a minority are monopolising the majority of wealth; and in order to get the show back on the road, this needs to be redistributed to get the majority spending again - cash rather than on credit of course. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Econonomy?

 

Well you are partly right in saying that there is a wealth inbalance, but there is also the problem of it being more sensible, in personal economic terms, for people to simply not work because they enjoy a better standard of living by being idle and not working. And this is mainly due to the taxation system which takes as much as it can from the working man. If income tax started to be levied at above the minimum wage, with similar limitations on NI, then a person could take home more by working than by sitting at home doing nothing. There is the true inbalance. Obviously there is no simple answer to the conundrum, and obviously our political leaders are unable to sort it out for the simple reason that they are the ones who caused the problem in the first place. Perhaps they should look to the Swiss system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I was a member of the wealthy minority I would tell you to take your disparity and shove it where the sun don't shine. You want riches, then go out and work for them.

 

Life is not fair, I would have thought that someone of your advanced years would have worked that out by now Obs :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is the haves keep giving themselves pay rises, so the only way to stop the wealth gap is to tax them, or change the way they award themselves pay rises.

 

Kije.... what you have to realise is that the top bosses of the top 100 firms do not tend to award themselves their pay rises. They are recommended, voted for and awarded by shareholders.

 

If the top boss has increased profits and dividends for the shareholders (even if that means cutting staff and costs etc.; rightly or wrongly, he is seen to have done a good job and they reward him accordingly with a handsome pay rise.... that's capitalism!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...