General Election 2015

Instead of a mansion tax why don't they just use up to date Council Tax bandings, that's where the issue is nowadays.

I think they are all scared of doing so.

I think they are all scared of doing so.

Seems strange, surely that is the easiest way to do this without actually carrying out a 'mansion tax'.

It was a serious proposal. You pay CGT on the gain in investment property when you make it, but you don't pay it on other assets. There are a significant number of people who have pulled out of property and have made gains in the classic car market, net of tax. I believe that applying CGT to all capital gains is fair, as it's unfair to tax some gains and not others. I beleive, if it could be implemented, it wouldn't meet with much opposition.

 

If people are trading on ebay, buying and selling goods for a profit, this should be taxed. I know retailers who are struggling to compete with online, as there is not a level playing field. They have to take more risk and pay more tax. I cannot see this as fair.

 

How about doing away with car tax and implementing a higher levy on fuel? This would be fair. The more you drive or the more you burn (with gas guzzling cars), the more you pay. It is much harder to avoid, reduces administration and the costs of DVLA. Increasing revenue and reducing cost at the same time. Again, without abandoning common sense, it is hard to disagree with it (and I drive a lot and own gas guzzling cars). Surely people in the Labour party can see that there are many ways to increase the tax take, in a fair manner, whilst reducing costs too?

I tend to agree with you. The problem with charging CGT on cars is that they'd have to give allowances for losses, which would be losing a lot more than they gained.

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/classic-cars-can-be-the-route-to-escaping-tax-while-motoring-to-soaring-profits-8536935.html

Fuel duty instead of car tax seems too sensible and obvious to ever be implemented

I tend to agree with you. The problem with charging CGT on cars is that they'd have to give allowances for losses, which would be losing a lot more than they gained.

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/classic-cars-can-be-the-route-to-escaping-tax-while-motoring-to-soaring-profits-8536935.html

 

Fuel duty instead of car tax seems too sensible and obvious to ever be implemented

There is no such thing as car tax had hasn't been for nearly 80 years.

Seems strange, surely that is the easiest way to do this without actually carrying out a 'mansion tax'.

I genuinely believe that they are so scared of changing it in case too many people's bills skyrocket. It would be electoral suicide.

I genuinely believe that they are so scared of changing it in case too many people's bills skyrocket. It would be electoral suicide.

Surely that's a fairer solution than a mansion tax though? Sad if true.

I genuinely believe that they are so scared of changing it in case too many people's bills skyrocket. It would be electoral suicide.

So really it isn't about redistributing wealth at all. It's a populist policy purely to win votes by looking like the party that is tough on toffs.

So really it isn't about redistributing wealth at all. It's a populist policy purely to win votes by looking like the party that is tough on toffs.

You notice I said ALL are scared of doing it. It's a poison chalice but 10/10 for your attempt to twist my words.

Surely that's a fairer solution than a mansion tax though? Sad if true.

No party has changed the bands for the same reason, suicide IMHO. Pretty obvious that it needs doing.

So really it isn't about redistributing wealth at all. It's a populist policy purely to win votes by looking like the party that is tough on toffs.

they should introduce top-hat + monocle tax. Or i.e. put a tax on certain words like i.e. lavatory. And how about i.e putting a i.e. 50% tax on i.e. £50 notes? Just a few suggestions!

they should introduce top-hat + monocle tax. Or i.e. put a tax on certain words like i.e. lavatory. And how about i.e putting a i.e. 50% tax on i.e. £50 notes? Just a few suggestions!

Builders and plumbers would have a massive problem with that...They love their monocles.

There is no such thing as car tax had hasn't been for nearly 80 years.

We all know it as that. It may not be the formal name but who do you know that calls it Vehicle Excise Duty, or whatever? Hardly worth mentioning, don't you think?

Builders and plumbers would have a massive problem with that...They love their monocles.

i dunno what you mean by that Sarb Is monocle some kind of building + plumbing tool?

In other news, I went to a cash point the other day in a shitty little town called Atherstone, which is near Nuneaton, which is near Coventry, and it paid me out in fivers. Fivers! Probably the pikiest thing I ever saw!

We all know it as that. It may not be the formal name but who do you know that calls it Vehicle Excise Duty, or whatever? Hardly worth mentioning, don't you think?

I think they need to stick with current system cos my car is got 2L of powerful Ford horsepowers, yet they're only charging me £30 per year. I think it must be some kind of Mistake, but I ain't arguing!

Congratulations for labelling charities as being like a retail service and that donating to them is like going to Tesco or joining BUPA. Truly a spectacular trivialisation of the service they provide for the needy.

Nice try on a cheap point score but a pitiful misinterpretation of what I said.

Obviously, as Hypo pointed out in my absence, I was talking about the act/active choice of giving to charities and not what charities actually do. Big difference. Lord Trousers himself talked about donating his "spare" money so that point was never in debate between us anyway.

But hey, well done on getting all precious.

Oh well, at least you won't be able to most anything more moronic than that today.

But what is grossly unfair is that those rich bastards only have to pay the same rate as the poor. That can't be right or just. They should be bled dry on everything the own, everything they earn and everything they buy. That'll teach them.

Sorry, my mistake.

So really it isn't about redistributing wealth at all. It's a populist policy purely to win votes by looking like the party that is tough on toffs.

that is what it is all about.

I watched the politics show Sunday just gone. Harriet Harman was going on about how people have had enough of people like Osborne (who was sat next to her) and his posh schooled back ground.

His response was basically...what are you talking about, we went to the same school. She had no reply lol

We all know it as that. It may not be the formal name but who do you know that calls it Vehicle Excise Duty, or whatever? Hardly worth mentioning, don't you think?

Very worth mentioning as we all have the option to buy cars with zero excise so the car tax, as you call it, would appear a better option than your suggestion, don't you think?

that is what it is all about.

Of course it is Jamie, of course it is.

Yes, of course the 'wealth' gets transformed into something more tangible in the process, but I'd still rather have the choice as to where my 'spare' cash goes rather than have more of it siphoned up in taxes. The less tax I pay the more I give to worthy causes. I'm happy with the current balance I'm able to strike between the two.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving more money to charities. I'm just saying they play a very different role to Government and one can't possibly do the role of the other. Which isn't a bad thing. And I can't see how paying less tax and giving more to charity is in anyones interest.

Nice try on a cheap point score but a pitiful misinterpretation of what I said.

 

Obviously, as Hypo pointed out in my absence, I was talking about the act/active choice of giving to charities and not what charities actually do. Big difference. Lord Trousers himself talked about donating his "spare" money so that point was never in debate between us anyway.

 

But hey, well done on getting all precious.

 

Oh well, at least you won't be able to most anything more moronic than that today.

 

Sorry, my mistake.

I think most charities would be over the moon if the public viewed giving to them as part of their daily routine the same as they would do going to Tesco or Bupa....

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving more money to charities. I'm just saying they play a very different role to Government and one can't possibly do the role of the other. Which isn't a bad thing. And I can't see how paying less tax and giving more to charity is in anyones interest.

Absolutely right. Another thing worth thinking about is the 'appeal' of the charities. Any charity supporting children and / or animals is likely to get a lot more in donations than, say, charities supporting mental health because they are perceived as having more kerb appeal. Somehow the less popular charities need supporting somehow

Absolutely right. Another thing worth thinking about is the 'appeal' of the charities. Any charity supporting children and / or animals is likely to get a lot more in donations than, say, charities supporting mental health because they are perceived as having more kerb appeal. Somehow the less popular charities need supporting somehow

Donkey charities often perform better than most. Seriously. What is it about Donkeys?

Nice try on a cheap point score but a pitiful misinterpretation of what I said.

 

Obviously, as Hypo pointed out in my absence, I was talking about the act/active choice of giving to charities and not what charities actually do. Big difference. Lord Trousers himself talked about donating his "spare" money so that point was never in debate between us anyway.

 

But hey, well done on getting all precious.

 

Oh well, at least you won't be able to most anything more moronic than that today.

 

 

Sorry, my mistake.

My tongue was so far in my cheek that it totally escaped your notice and allowed you to get all precious over it. I was parodying the lefties parroting their panacea for solving the funding of the NHS, Education, the Benefits system, etc. by taxing the rich until their pips squeaked.

I think most charities would be over the moon if the public viewed giving to them as part of their daily routine the same as they would do going to Tesco or Bupa....

Of course they would.

And the nation's biggest charities have a media/advertising/communication budget that is easily comparable to any number of consumer brands/service companies. Because their objective is to get people to spend their disposable income. And once you spend once you are encouraged to repeat spend through further tailored communication. Basic marketing. And good luck to em.

Very worth mentioning as we all have the option to buy cars with zero excise so the car tax, as you call it, would appear a better option than your suggestion, don't you think?

The subject is well worth discussing but I was referring to the name of the tax in question and I was quoting another poster anyway. Even the government call it car tax: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax 'Help With Car Tax' and many other instances.

I have never understood the reason for exempting old vehicles and in general those vehicles subject to tax are also used regularly. Fuel duty would have the merit of being proportional to road usage.

Donkey charities often perform better than most. Seriously. What is it about Donkeys?

I got attacked by a group of donkeys near Beaulieu. No ****. Was hilarious, until they started biting and kicking. Punched one in the nose. True story.

Of course they would.

 

And the nation's biggest charities have a media/advertising/communication budget that is easily comparable to any number of consumer brands/service companies. Because their objective is to get people to spend their disposable income. And once you spend once you are encouraged to repeat spend through further tailored communication. Basic marketing. And good luck to em.

One of the most contentious topics, but basically, yes.

And at the same time, the public don't really realise the positive impact charities have on their daily lives. It's not just about those 'most needy'. It's actually you and I and everyone else on here, benefitting from the things we fund. Yet we often just give blindly, without really realising it. Which I think is amazing.

But it still can't replace Government.

My tongue was so far in my cheek that it totally escaped your notice and allowed you to get all precious over it. I was parodying the lefties parroting their panacea for solving the funding of the NHS, Education, the Benefits system, etc. by taxing the rich until their pips squeaked.

Er, no. I got the lame joke. I think the phrase that best describes you is "not an original thought in your head". Sweet you are still patting yourself on the back for your "parody".

And me describing it as "moronic" is not "getting all precious". Yet another misfire.

Anyway, I accept your apology on your pitiful misunderstanding of my charity comment.

Of course it is Jamie, of course it is.

Thing is, it pretty much is. In relation to overall taxation revenue and public spending, the net amount raised by Labour's planned mansion tax is trifling. However, it plays awfully well with a lot of their voters who love nothing more than a bit of class war, which makes the fact that he's the only major party political leader who would have to pay the tax even more ironic...

Thing is, it pretty much is. In relation to overall taxation revenue and public spending, the net amount raised by Labour's planned mansion tax is trifling. However, it plays awfully well with a lot of their voters who love nothing more than a bit of class war, which makes the fact that he's the only major party political leader who would have to pay the tax even more ironic...

So Cameron wouldn't have to pay the tax? I know his wife's company allegedly off-shores its profits but are you saying Cameron avoids tax too? Surely not!

So Cameron wouldn't have to pay the tax? I know his wife's company allegedly off-shores its profits but are you saying Cameron avoids tax too? Surely not!

The Cameron's house is currently valued at less than £2m, as is Clegg's. Ed "man of the people" Milliband lives in a north London mansion (by his definition) valued around £2.7m.

In other news, I went to a cash point the other day in a shitty little town called Atherstone, which is near Nuneaton, which is near Coventry, and it paid me out in fivers. Fivers! Probably the pikiest thing I ever saw!

How else are you going to withdraw £5?

Thing is, it pretty much is. In relation to overall taxation revenue and public spending, the net amount raised by Labour's planned mansion tax is trifling. However, it plays awfully well with a lot of their voters who love nothing more than a bit of class war, which makes the fact that he's the only major party political leader who would have to pay the tax even more ironic...

You tory boys would say that though. Standard mantra.

You tory boys would say that though. Standard mantra.

Well, you may think it a mantra, but it happens to be true. You don't think that Labour would expend so much energy on a policy that would raise a little over £1bn if they didn't think it was a vote winner, do you?

i dunno what you mean by that Sarb Is monocle some kind of building + plumbing tool?

 

In other news, I went to a cash point the other day in a shitty little town called Atherstone, which is near Nuneaton, which is near Coventry, and it paid me out in fivers. Fivers! Probably the pikiest thing I ever saw!

I love fivers! Makes me feel rich like when I'm winning at Monopoly.

The Cameron's house is currently valued at less than £2m, as is Clegg's. Ed "man of the people" Milliband lives in a north London mansion (by his definition) valued around £2.7m.

His London home was valued at just under £2m 5 years ago so you can bet your bottom dollar it's over £2m now.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cameron-millions-family-fortunes-tories-206432

His house in Dean, Oxfordshire would sell for close on £2m (if not more). I know his house and the immediate environs well as I used to be one of his constituents.

You don't think that Labour would expend so much energy on a policy that would raise a little over £1bn if they didn't think it was a vote winner, do you?

Just a billion huh. About as much as it would cost to reduce class sizes to 20 from 30 for 500,000 pupils. Hardly worth bothering with.

"worth up to" - so any figure below is covered. Accurate.

"worth up to" - so any figure below is covered. Accurate.

Which is more than can be said for your comprehension skills! If it was worth just under £2m (which is what I said, not 'worth up to') 5 years ago (In London) you bet it's worth way more than £2m now.

Here's his modest pile in Oxfordshire

Given that a 5 bed new house on an estate in nearby Witney sells for £750K I think you can see the worth of his country house in a very desirable rural spot

EDIT - for some reason I can't post the image. Just google David Cameron's house, Dean, Oxfordshire

Read the article you linked to, btf.

You can then come back and apologise. [emoji12]

Read the article you linked to, btf.

 

You can then come back and apologise.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1702262/Nice-little-earner-Cameron-rents-out-his-London-house.html

£2.7m in 2010?

Read the article you linked to, btf.

 

You can then come back and apologise. [emoji12]

I am! Sorry But, as I said, that article was written 5 years ago so I have no doubt that even 'worth up to' would read 'exceeds' today.

And CB Fry's research backs me up!

Surely when we say this house is worth x, it's not worth x, it's worth what someone will pay for it? Hence these values are pretty pointless, and the only way they can really do it is by charging those who have bought for over 2 million?

You don't think that Labour would expend so much energy on a policy that would raise a little over £1bn if they didn't think it was a vote winner, do you?

Labour's projections are roughly the same as the Liberal Democrats who, remember, were the first to propose the mansion tax. This will affect 0.5% of properties in the UK, and will cost those with houses between £2m and £3m an extra £250 per month. In London, which is choc-ful of 'low-tax' councils, and where the owners of the absurd Candy Brothers' properties in Knightsbridge for example have bought large bling flats for up to £200 million, council tax can hit a ceiling of just slightly over £2,000 per year. And that's if they pay any council tax at all (most in 1 Hyde Park do not).

Remember also that London is as solidly a Labour city as any other in the UK. The mansion tax proposal has not only not dented that support; it's increased it.

I do find it actually quite weird that the abject forelock-tugging to the rich on this thread (see the amusing Wes Tender for further details) extends to thinking that almost non-existent property taxes for the rich are a good idea. And it's just as odd to describe as "soaking the rich" the curtailment of the one-person tax havens known as non-dom status - a status which, in truly British-Uriah-Heep style, can even be inherited, for heaven's sake!

I suppose virulent objections to the mansion tax sit well with slavish support for the bedroom tax - never has such a contrast of policies concerning property, poverty and wealth highlighted the ignominious bigotry of the Bullingdon Tories and their obsequious acolytes who fall for such crap from their betters.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1702262/Nice-little-earner-Cameron-rents-out-his-London-house.html

 

£2.7m in 2010?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/house-prices/11496616/Oh-the-irony-Milibands-London-home-would-be-hit-by-Labours-mansion-tax.html

£1.97M in 2015?

*shrugs*

Surely when we say this house is worth x, it's not worth x, it's worth what someone will pay for it? Hence these values are pretty pointless, and the only way they can really do it is by charging those who have bought for over 2 million?

There have been taxes based on house values for a very long time, you'll be paying one now.

I've heard it all now. Tory voters complaining that all Labour voters think about is a class war. It's been a class war for the last 5 years. A camel through the eye of a needle......

You tory boys would say that though. Standard mantra.

The problem is the modern Labour Party is the most elitist it has ever been. The party is more interested in winning votes by meaningless 'robin hood/steal from the rich, give to the poor' rhetoric than coming up with policies based on any political science. There is a reason why they continually have class jabs at the Tories (Ed Balls describing elements of Tory policy as "Eton Mess" is one of my favourites) and it's because they attempt to convince anyone that's gullible enough they still represent the working class in some way.

"Mansion" Tax = ie. something associated with wealth/middle class with the word 'tax' on the end.

...Ed Balls describing elements of Tory policy as "Eton Mess" is one of my favourites...

It's one of mine as well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/house-prices/11496616/Oh-the-irony-Milibands-London-home-would-be-hit-by-Labours-mansion-tax.html

 

£1.97M in 2015?

 

*shrugs*

What's the problem ? If Labour get in and introduce the tax, Ed M will pay it. Hardly controversial and certainly not ironic, ( it seems the Telegraph has recruited Alanis Morissette as their headline writer ).