Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Osborne’s tax credits dilemma might be solved by the Lords

24

Comments

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    Doddy

    " the shame lies with the Bishops, Politicos and assorted do gooders who shout the most and do the least...that would seem to include you."

    I've seen several of these wretched people crossing the border from Italy into France with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a backpack with all their belongings.

    Of all the injustices in the world not many strike me as more unfair than that while these people have had to leave their homes and country with nothing and with no hope people like you can decide whether it's more benefitial to park your backside in England where you'll get free heathcare or Italy where you can continue to drink yourself stupid........

    Have you taken any in or helped out at your local refugee soup kitchen ?

    All hot air and no action Roger - have you thought of joining the SNP ?
    Tory steps in with jackboots and cannot hide his bitter twisted hatred of the SNP. Get a life toom tabard.
    Nat jumps to the rescue of wealthy ex-pat - Connery Syndrome I believe it's called.

    Haven't you got a children's author to abuse Malc ?
    What a saddo, not just a simple liar , I leave abusing people to lowlifes like you.
    I see Sturgeon is wisely distancing herself from the Wings over Scotland hatemonger.
    She didn't name him - personally I think she meant Malc ;)
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited October 2015

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    I don't think the future historian will care about our "left v right" politics, and on this issue neither should we frankly. We are dealing with the potential downfall of our civilisation, at least on the European continent. Collectively we have allowed for decades now the culture that is leading to this doom to not only flourish but become ingrained. The reaction to the drowned boy off Turkey was probably the best exemplification of this - instead of thinking "why did such an irresponsible father take such action" everyone exclaimed "oh what have WE done??"

    We're pathetic and we'll be rightly wiped out.

    The breakdown of the "mainstream" European Right, and its replacement by the insurgent Right is still fascinating to watch.
    How are UKIP doing?
    One MP (-1), Zero councils (-1) and a number of councillors lost.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-34517022
    I was referring to Continental Europe. I should have made myself clearer.

    Here, the main right wing party is protected by the electoral system. If we had a continental system, then that party would need confidence and supply from the insurgents.
    Although the policy being followed by the UK Government in relation to the migrant crisis would be considered as one of the 'insurgent Right' amongst most of the political establishment of continental Europe.
    On suspects the insurgent right in the form of Mr Wilders might adopt a some what more robust policy that the current triangulation being adopted by Cam, who started off with a "no Syrians, not no way, not no how" policy and within a week had shown his usual cast iron reliability and eased up to 20,000.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    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?

    TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
    Why not get rid of the triple lock AND scrap tax credits ?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    Doddy

    " the shame lies with the Bishops, Politicos and assorted do gooders who shout the most and do the least...that would seem to include you."

    I've seen several of these wretched people crossing the border from Italy into France with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a backpack with all their belongings.

    Of all the injustices in the world not many strike me as more unfair than that while these people have had to leave their homes and country with nothing and with no hope people like you can decide whether it's more benefitial to park your backside in England where you'll get free heathcare or Italy where you can continue to drink yourself stupid........

    Have you taken any in or helped out at your local refugee soup kitchen ?

    All hot air and no action Roger - have you thought of joining the SNP ?
    Tory steps in with jackboots and cannot hide his bitter twisted hatred of the SNP. Get a life toom tabard.
    Nat jumps to the rescue of wealthy ex-pat - Connery Syndrome I believe it's called.

    Haven't you got a children's author to abuse Malc ?
    What a saddo, not just a simple liar , I leave abusing people to lowlifes like you.
    I see Sturgeon is wisely distancing herself from the Wings over Scotland hatemonger.
    When has she ever had anything to do with Wings, only in the minds of lowlifes on here.
    On the other hand he can like or hate whoever he wants, it is a free country. Amazing the amount of frothers on here who poo poo him but are ardent followers.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. G, pooh-pooh*. Ahem.
  • 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?

    TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
    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.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Mr. 63, the CinemaSins chap (does the Everything Wrong With... videos) uses 'racist' for things that are racist. And sexist. And ageist. And nationalist. And that aren't bigoted at all. [It's deliberately daft].

    I engaged with some people on Saturday at a Welcome Refugee movement, they were very polite until I asked them to be specific about numbers and how/where we would accommodate an unlimited number (they refused to put an upper limit on the amout we should take in).

    Eventually one said:

    "That's the problem with racists like you"

    Of course it closes down the argument and they smugly believe to have "won"



  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    Doddy

    " the shame lies with the Bishops, Politicos and assorted do gooders who shout the most and do the least...that would seem to include you."

    I've seen several of these wretched people crossing the border from Italy into France with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a backpack with all their belongings.

    Of all the injustices in the world not many strike me as more unfair than that while these people have had to leave their homes and country with nothing and with no hope people like you can decide whether it's more benefitial to park your backside in England where you'll get free heathcare or Italy where you can continue to drink yourself stupid........

    Have you taken any in or helped out at your local refugee soup kitchen ?

    All hot air and no action Roger - have you thought of joining the SNP ?
    Tory steps in with jackboots and cannot hide his bitter twisted hatred of the SNP. Get a life toom tabard.
    Nat jumps to the rescue of wealthy ex-pat - Connery Syndrome I believe it's called.

    Haven't you got a children's author to abuse Malc ?
    What a saddo, not just a simple liar , I leave abusing people to lowlifes like you.
    I see Sturgeon is wisely distancing herself from the Wings over Scotland hatemonger.
    When has she ever had anything to do with Wings, only in the minds of lowlifes on here.
    On the other hand he can like or hate whoever he wants, it is a free country. Amazing the amount of frothers on here who poo poo him but are ardent followers.
    I think Mr Wings over Zomerzet was still hurting after being personally schooled by Andrew Neil on economics 101.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014

    JEO said:

    The cuts to welfare were in the Tory manifesto. For an undemocratic house to overrule this would be completely inappropriate. Especially when it is done by the Lib Dems, who have a share of the Lords far ahead of their elected representation or vote share. Given their past statements on the Lords it would actually be rank hypocrisy.

    The Lib Dems (or at least some of them) have made no two bones about the fact that they can both embarass the government with their obstructionism and, furthermore, through that same behaviour advance the case for reform amongst Conservative MPs.

    Win-win.
    Other than it leaves them jobless.
    It does; well, in a 300 peer house they'd probably only have 25 "Lords", but many Lib Dems live for consitutional reform.
  • LucyJonesLucyJones Posts: 651
    Sandpit said:

    On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.

    My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.

    I posted this the other day:

    The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html

    Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.

    "Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

    Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.

    Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864




  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    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?

    TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
    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.
    He hates bankers, hedge funders and other members of the 1% that pay almost a third of the income tax in the country even more, yet fails to explain how the NHS will be funded if they decamp to friendlier tax climates - I have long given up expecting a coherent world view from the left of centre.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    Charles said:

    John_M said:

    Charles said:

    @SouthamObserver FPT

    From a position of wealth it is, of course, easy to mock "the howls of anguish" of hard-working people who will see their incomes cut as a result of the tax credit cuts and will suffer significant privations as a result. But it's not a great look.

    If you had read my post...

    The "howls of anguish" were from left wingers identifying edge cases

    They were not from hard working people seeing their incomes cut

    Will be when the letters drop though.
    Good morning all. If Cameron wishes, the government can stick to its guns. The election is in 2020, not 2016. I've yet to find (or even create from the data I've found) hard numbers for those affected.

    Yes, there are certainly edge cases, as there always are with threshold-related policies. How many of those edge cases exist in practice, it's harder to say with any authority.
    Funnily enough I agree. The Tories have a mandate to cut welfare by £12bn. The problem is they said falls to working tax credits were not ahead whilst positioning themselves as the new party of the workers.

    Personally I say bring on the pain of the ideology of surplus.
    Can you provide a link to that?
    Clip on bbc news Friday of Cameron saying Working Tax Credits will not go down linked to QT woman
    Also 29/4/15
    Asked to confirm that his party was not planning any cut, Mr Gove replied: “We’re going to freeze them for two years. We are not going to cut them.”

    Loads of opportunities to come clean but under pressure from Labours "Tories secret plans to cut working tax credits" Tories just chose to lie
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    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?

    TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
    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.
    Owls is also a 'sponging' pensioner.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 63, yeah. You bloody bigot. Wanting facts and practical solutions based on evidence and reason. Boo hiss!
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    charles
    These refugees want work and a life not a tent in the desert. Do the government really think that giving money to much poorer nations than themselves to provide food and medicine absolves them of all other responsibilities?

    What a load of sanctimonious tosh. The same could be said of most of sub-Saharan Africa, and the vast majority of developing Asia, the peoples of which would have a vastly improved standard of living if they moved to the UK. Of course it might get a little crowded, still no need to worry about that living where you do eh ?
    That's what the free market's for. If you can't afford to eat, you starve.

    It worked for 19th Century America.
    The immigrants to 19th Century America were generally people of a liberal persuasion who began thinking of themselves as American first within one generation, certainly two. Their level of productivity was also pretty close to that of the people already there. And there was vast amounts of land available to settle on.
    “Vast amounts of land” which until then supported the way of life of the indigenous people.
    Well, yes. But it was fairly thinly settled even considering the natives. I believe there were only two million people in what is now the mainland USA and Canada. And many of them got wiped out by disease.

    On a related note, I have been reading a book on economic development recently, and it mentioned that the greatest cost from civil war is disease, which claims by far the most lives. Apparently the biggest problem is not actually in the conflict area itself, but in and around the refugee areas: you have tired, hungry people with weak immune systems travelling through new areas where they do not have immunity to the local diseases, and then taking them to a third area where they finally settle, often causing epidemics to the surrounding population. Food for thought.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited October 2015

    Mr. 63, yeah. You bloody bigot. Wanting facts and practical solutions based on evidence and reason. Boo hiss!

    Evidence? Facts ? You are so passe Mr Dancer, didn't you get the memo that its now all about emoting (preferably in public) and flaunting your virtue. Action, and particular effective and sustainable action is strictly an optional extra.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Indigo, the only thing I wave around in the public's face is my wiffle stick.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Brilliant

    Actual LOL http://t.co/YMiS4dPljk
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @PolhomeEditor: NEW: @NicolaSturgeon warns her supporters over online abuse after @Scotlandteam defeat http://t.co/twb7AgpXxw http://t.co/Ac5oMufs67
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    There is a sweet spot in the system at the moment where a claimant can work a particular number of hours (16-18) and can get maximum benefits, dodge the benefit cap and pay no National Insurance or Income Tax.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Indigo said:

    Mr. 63, yeah. You bloody bigot. Wanting facts and practical solutions based on evidence and reason. Boo hiss!

    Evidence? Facts ? You are so passe Mr Dancer, didn't you get the memo that its now all about emoting (preferably in public) and flaunting your virtue. Action, and particular effective and sustainable action is strictly an optional extra.
    Exactly what happened Mr indigo, one minute we were having a perfectly polite discussion, the next I appeared to be surrounded by defiant looking people when I hadn't disagreed with anything they'd said.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    John_M said:

    Charles said:

    @SouthamObserver FPT

    From a position of wealth it is, of course, easy to mock "the howls of anguish" of hard-working people who will see their incomes cut as a result of the tax credit cuts and will suffer significant privations as a result. But it's not a great look.

    If you had read my post...

    The "howls of anguish" were from left wingers identifying edge cases

    They were not from hard working people seeing their incomes cut

    Will be when the letters drop though.
    Good morning all. If Cameron wishes, the government can stick to its guns. The election is in 2020, not 2016. I've yet to find (or even create from the data I've found) hard numbers for those affected.

    Yes, there are certainly edge cases, as there always are with threshold-related policies. How many of those edge cases exist in practice, it's harder to say with any authority.
    Funnily enough I agree. The Tories have a mandate to cut welfare by £12bn. The problem is they said falls to working tax credits were not ahead whilst positioning themselves as the new party of the workers.

    Personally I say bring on the pain of the ideology of surplus.
    Can you provide a link to that?
    Clip on bbc news Friday of Cameron saying Working Tax Credits will not go down linked to QT woman
    Also 29/4/15
    Asked to confirm that his party was not planning any cut, Mr Gove replied: “We’re going to freeze them for two years. We are not going to cut them.”

    Loads of opportunities to come clean but under pressure from Labours "Tories secret plans to cut working tax credits" Tories just chose to lie
    FWIW all I remember from the campaign was a lot of complaints that the Tories weren't spelling out their plans.

    I'm surprised no one has made a bigger deal of the issue if he really did rule out cutting them.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2015
    LucyJones said:

    A married couple, both working full time

    50,000 out of 4.3m working tax credit claims, and they will be on bare minimum wages - £6.31 at the time of last finalised statistics (2013/2014).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Scott_P said:

    @PolhomeEditor: NEW: @NicolaSturgeon warns her supporters over online abuse after @Scotlandteam defeat http://t.co/twb7AgpXxw http://t.co/Ac5oMufs67

    LOL, she did not warn anyone , she gave her opinion on "online abuse".
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    In my Nat West you can apply for a 95% mortgage with government backed "help to buy".

    It seems tories are happy to give no strings attached money to some people but not others.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    LucyJones said:

    Sandpit said:

    On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.

    My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.

    I posted this the other day:

    The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html

    Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.

    "Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

    Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.

    Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
    Thanks Lucy, I did see that example the other day.

    Two people each working 40 hours a week on £7.50 an hour have a gross household income of £600 per week, or just over £30k per year. That seems rather high to be subsidising with tax credits at all. It also assumes that their pay won't rise in line with the minimum wage increases next year, dare I suggest that the pay rate was deliberately chosen so as not to be affected by the NMW rise to help make the point.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,730
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    John_M said:

    Charles said:

    @SouthamObserver FPT

    From a position of wealth it is, of course, easy to mock "the howls of anguish" of hard-working people who will see their incomes cut as a result of the tax credit cuts and will suffer significant privations as a result. But it's not a great look.

    If you had read my post...

    The "howls of anguish" were from left wingers identifying edge cases

    They were not from hard working people seeing their incomes cut

    Will be when the letters drop though.
    Good morning all. If Cameron wishes, the government can stick to its guns. The election is in 2020, not 2016. I've yet to find (or even create from the data I've found) hard numbers for those affected.

    Yes, there are certainly edge cases, as there always are with threshold-related policies. How many of those edge cases exist in practice, it's harder to say with any authority.
    Funnily enough I agree. The Tories have a mandate to cut welfare by £12bn. The problem is they said falls to working tax credits were not ahead whilst positioning themselves as the new party of the workers.

    Personally I say bring on the pain of the ideology of surplus.
    Can you provide a link to that?
    Clip on bbc news Friday of Cameron saying Working Tax Credits will not go down linked to QT woman
    Also 29/4/15
    Asked to confirm that his party was not planning any cut, Mr Gove replied: “We’re going to freeze them for two years. We are not going to cut them.”

    Loads of opportunities to come clean but under pressure from Labours "Tories secret plans to cut working tax credits" Tories just chose to lie
    FWIW all I remember from the campaign was a lot of complaints that the Tories weren't spelling out their plans.

    I'm surprised no one has made a bigger deal of the issue if he really did rule out cutting them.
    I don't really understand tax credits etc but he said child tax credits weren't going to be cut... Have they been? Or is it working tax credits? Or are they the same thing?!?!

    http://youtu.be/CxS-Tow-Qik
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    We may disagree on this but, in my view, a pledge to freeze working age benefits does not rule out a cut in working age benefits.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    watford30 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?

    TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
    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.
    Owls is also a 'sponging' pensioner.
    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.

    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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    Charles said:

    We may disagree on this but, in my view, a pledge to freeze working age benefits does not rule out a cut in working age benefits.
    Titter Freeze till 2017 means cut in half?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014
    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Charles said:

    We may disagree on this but, in my view, a pledge to freeze working age benefits does not rule out a cut in working age benefits.
    Yes, it could be reasonably argued that the "freeze" is in the context of annual updating of benefits in general, rather than reform of any specific entitlement.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    We may disagree on this but, in my view, a pledge to freeze working age benefits does not rule out a cut in working age benefits.
    Titter Freeze till 2017 means cut in half?
    No:

    "I will not cut X" is a positive promise not to cut X

    "I will freeze X" does not preclude "I've changed my mind and decided to cut X"
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    isam said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    John_M said:

    Charles said:

    @SouthamObserver FPT

    From a position of wealth it is, of course, easy to mock "the howls of anguish" of hard-working people who will see their incomes cut as a result of the tax credit cuts and will suffer significant privations as a result. But it's not a great look.

    If you had read my post...

    The "howls of anguish" were from left wingers identifying edge cases

    They were not from hard working people seeing their incomes cut

    Will be when the letters drop though.
    Good morning all. If Cameron wishes, the government can stick to its guns. The election is in 2020, not 2016. I've yet to find (or even create from the data I've found) hard numbers for those affected.

    Yes, there are certainly edge cases, as there always are with threshold-related policies. How many of those edge cases exist in practice, it's harder to say with any authority.
    Funnily enough I agree. The Tories have a mandate to cut welfare by £12bn. The problem is they said falls to working tax credits were not ahead whilst positioning themselves as the new party of the workers.

    Personally I say bring on the pain of the ideology of surplus.
    Can you provide a link to that?
    Clip on bbc news Friday of Cameron saying Working Tax Credits will not go down linked to QT woman
    Also 29/4/15
    Asked to confirm that his party was not planning any cut, Mr Gove replied: “We’re going to freeze them for two years. We are not going to cut them.”

    Loads of opportunities to come clean but under pressure from Labours "Tories secret plans to cut working tax credits" Tories just chose to lie
    FWIW all I remember from the campaign was a lot of complaints that the Tories weren't spelling out their plans.

    I'm surprised no one has made a bigger deal of the issue if he really did rule out cutting them.
    I don't really understand tax credits etc but he said child tax credits weren't going to be cut... Have they been? Or is it working tax credits? Or are they the same thing?!?!

    http://youtu.be/CxS-Tow-Qik
    They are *not* the same thing.

    This is the point I'm trying to make to BJO...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    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.

    It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawal

    But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    If we said during the campaign we wouldn't cut working tax credits, we shouldn't cut them. We can maintain the freeze beyond 2017, but shouldn't reduce the taper rape or the point where it starts.

    I also agree that the triple lock should be removed, but again this was a pledge made during the campaign.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited October 2015
    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.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    BJO When your Grandchildren reach 70 they will be paying for their parents pensions..not yours...apparently..I am still working at 75 and paying substantial taxes .. so I am obviously picking up the tab for some old wrinkly... maybe you..
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    edited October 2015

    watford30 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?

    TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
    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.
    Owls is also a 'sponging' pensioner.
    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.

    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.
    So it will be an OAP and not a benefit? Interesting!
  • isamisam Posts: 40,730
    edited October 2015
    X
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    John_M said:

    Charles said:

    @SouthamObserver FPT

    From a position of wealth it is, of course, easy to mock "the howls of anguish" of hard-working people who will see their incomes cut as a result of the tax credit cuts and will suffer significant privations as a result. But it's not a great look.

    If you had read my post...

    The "howls of anguish" were from left wingers identifying edge cases

    They were not from hard working people seeing their incomes cut

    Will be when the letters drop though.
    Good morning all. If Cameron wishes, the government can stick to its guns. The election is in 2020, not 2016. I've yet to find (or even create from the data I've found) hard numbers for those affected.

    Yes, there are certainly edge cases, as there always are with threshold-related policies. How many of those edge cases exist in practice, it's harder to say with any authority.
    Funnily enough I agree. The Tories have a mandate to cut welfare by £12bn. The problem is they said falls to working tax credits were not ahead whilst positioning themselves as the new party of the workers.

    Personally I say bring on the pain of the ideology of surplus.
    Can you provide a link to that?
    Clip on bbc news Friday of Cameron saying Working Tax Credits will not go down linked to QT woman
    Also 29/4/15
    Asked to confirm that his party was not planning any cut, Mr Gove replied: “We’re going to freeze them for two years. We are not going to cut them.”

    Loads of opportunities to come clean but under pressure from Labours "Tories secret plans to cut working tax credits" Tories just chose to lie
    FWIW all I remember from the campaign was a lot of complaints that the Tories weren't spelling out their plans.

    I'm surprised no one has made a bigger deal of the issue if he really did rule out cutting them.
    I don't really understand tax credits etc but he said child tax credits weren't going to be cut... Have they been? Or is it working tax credits? Or are they the same thing?!?!

    http://youtu.be/CxS-Tow-Qik
    They are *not* the same thing.

    This is the point I'm trying to make to BJO...
    Ah ok thank you

    Personally, to prevent the high marginal tax rate when starting work having been on benefits, I would decrease benefits the longer someone has been unemployed. There are unskilled jobs on offer in the job centre, no one need be unemployed.
  • LucyJonesLucyJones Posts: 651
    chestnut said:

    LucyJones said:

    A married couple, both working full time

    50,000 out of 4.3m working tax credit claims, and they will be on bare minimum wages - £6.31 at the time of last finalised statistics (2013/2014).
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by the second part - bare minimum wage of £6.31.
    Yes, I know what minimum wage is - but lots of people get low wages which are, nevertheless, slightly above minimum wage. Such people "doing the right thing" will be badly hit by the tax credit changes.

    As for the 50k figure - it only takes one particular hard case to catch the public mood for this to become problematic for the Conservative government. People knew (or should have done) that hundreds of would-be migrants were drowning in the Med and that this number would, obviously, have included a number of small children. Suddenly a photo of Aylan Kurdi is published and the handwringing and emoting begins. It doesn't look like the QT woman is the Aylan Kurdi of tax credits - but there might well be another person or family who will be.




  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,014
    Charles 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.

    It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawal

    But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
    He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.

    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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    We may disagree on this but, in my view, a pledge to freeze working age benefits does not rule out a cut in working age benefits.
    Titter Freeze till 2017 means cut in half?
    No:

    "I will not cut X" is a positive promise not to cut X

    "I will freeze X" does not preclude "I've changed my mind and decided to cut X"
    At the moment, any household earning up to £6,420 a year earns the full amount of whatever tax credits they're allowed to claim (including Child Tax Credits).

    People who earn more than that still get tax credits, but they're whittled down as income rises.

    This threshold is now being almost halved to £3,850 a year
  • JEO said:

    If we said during the campaign we wouldn't cut working tax credits, we shouldn't cut them. We can maintain the freeze beyond 2017, but shouldn't reduce the taper rape or the point where it starts.

    I also agree that the triple lock should be removed, but again this was a pledge made during the campaign.

    The Triple Lock is guaranteed until 2020, I wonder if any of the parties will say they are ending it in their manifesto for the next election.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. England, doubtful, but there may be the absence of a commitment to continue it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles 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.

    It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawal

    But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
    He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.

    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.
    I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    We may disagree on this but, in my view, a pledge to freeze working age benefits does not rule out a cut in working age benefits.
    Titter Freeze till 2017 means cut in half?
    No:

    "I will not cut X" is a positive promise not to cut X

    "I will freeze X" does not preclude "I've changed my mind and decided to cut X"
    At the moment, any household earning up to £6,420 a year earns the full amount of whatever tax credits they're allowed to claim (including Child Tax Credits).

    People who earn more than that still get tax credits, but they're whittled down as income rises.

    This threshold is now being almost halved to £3,850 a year
    I'm aware of that.

    And your point is?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723

    watford30 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?

    TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
    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.
    Owls is also a 'sponging' pensioner.
    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.

    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.
    So it will be an OAP and not a benefit? Interesting!
    An OAP is a benefit, the most expensive benefit by far.

    I thought numerous posters had explained this yesterday
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited October 2015
    Charles said:

    Charles 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.

    It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawal

    But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
    He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.

    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.
    I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.
    Solely for Foreign owners, or everyone?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2015
    LucyJones said:

    chestnut said:

    LucyJones said:

    A married couple, both working full time

    50,000 out of 4.3m working tax credit claims, and they will be on bare minimum wages - £6.31 at the time of last finalised statistics (2013/2014).
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by the second part - bare minimum wage of £6.31.

    Yes, I know what minimum wage is - but lots of people get low wages which are, nevertheless, slightly above minimum wage. Such people "doing the right thing" will be badly hit by the tax credit changes.

    As for the 50k figure - it only takes one particular hard case to catch the public mood for this to become problematic for the Conservative government. People knew (or should have done) that hundreds of would-be migrants were drowning in the Med and that this number would, obviously, have included a number of small children. Suddenly a photo of Aylan Kurdi is published and the handwringing and emoting begins. It doesn't look like the QT woman is the Aylan Kurdi of tax credits - but there might well be another person or family who will be.
    I accept all of that, but working tax credits for full time couples, both in work, is something that barely exists and where it does it will be for couples that are on minimum wage so they will see a big offset in rising wages.

    Taking your Costa couple, and assuming they do 30 hours each at £7.50 p.h, HMRC's own calculator generates a working tax credit of £0.

    An income of £23400 = no working tax credits now.

    They would get child tax credits though.If anything went down, it would be their child tax credits.

    There is a mountain of misinformation about. Nearly half of tax credit recipients are either unemployed or below the income thresholds (currently £120 pw).

    The threshold going to £3850 (JSA personal allowance) appears to me to be a necessary element in the introduction of Universal Credit.
  • watford30 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?

    TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
    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.
    Owls is also a 'sponging' pensioner.
    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.

    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.
    So it will be an OAP and not a benefit? Interesting!
    An OAP is a benefit, the most expensive benefit by far.

    I thought numerous posters had explained this yesterday
    And numerous posters agreed with me, the sensible ones.

    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?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles 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.

    It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawal

    But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
    He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.

    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.
    I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.
    For Foreign owners, or everyone else?
    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.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Roger




    What a load of bollocks,if you actually watched the TV shots 80% the so called 'refugees' are young men and as various TV reports have made clear less than 50% are from Syria.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles 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.

    It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawal

    But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
    He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.

    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.
    I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.
    For Foreign owners, or everyone else?
    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.
    From a straight economics basis, that is absolutely the right way forward.

    Of course, it would be unpopular with a lot of people.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Are the Tories missing the Lib Dems?

    Those sure footed,savvy voter friendly lib dems? who saw their party evaporate at the last election?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited October 2015
    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles 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.

    It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawal

    But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
    He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.

    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.
    I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.
    For Foreign owners, or everyone else?
    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.
    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 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.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Dodd,

    "so I am obviously picking up the tab for some old wrinkly... maybe you."

    I assumed the progression was wrinkly ... crumbly .... then coffin dodger. So wrinklies will be younger.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Given that the tax credit u-turn calls are being led by Tim Montgomerie, Cameron should stick to his guns absolutely.

    Given Liam Fox's comments this morning, Cameron faces an emerging threat from the right. For some tories, his supposedly triumphant speech clearly went down like a lead balloon.

    The next public finance figures could be interesting.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    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.

    It would replace council tax, so it would clearly be a negative for people living on their own (particularly for retired people).

    Of course, if you believe that it is the job of the tax system to encourage the efficient allocation of resources, then it is economically beneficial. That is, it would raise the cost of living in a house that was too big for you.

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited October 2015
    Mr. Zims, about 20% are Syrian [according to a few sources, including the BBC's Mark Urban].

    Many are economic migrants, a lot of whom come from the Balkans.

    Edited extra bit: Mr. Taffys, dare thou impugn the oracular oratory of One True Voice?

    Montgomerie's probably pissed as he'd positioned himself to be the Conservative equivalent of Dan Hodges.

    Except Hodges gets a fair amount of calls right.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    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.

    It would replace council tax, so it would clearly be a negative for people living on their own (particularly for retired people).

    Of course, if you believe that it is the job of the tax system to encourage the efficient allocation of resources, then it is economically beneficial. That is, it would raise the cost of living in a house that was too big for you.

    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.
    If you have a wealth tax, people just park their wealth abroad. It only really works on property.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    We may disagree on this but, in my view, a pledge to freeze working age benefits does not rule out a cut in working age benefits.
    Titter Freeze till 2017 means cut in half?
    No:

    "I will not cut X" is a positive promise not to cut X

    "I will freeze X" does not preclude "I've changed my mind and decided to cut X"
    At the moment, any household earning up to £6,420 a year earns the full amount of whatever tax credits they're allowed to claim (including Child Tax Credits).

    People who earn more than that still get tax credits, but they're whittled down as income rises.

    This threshold is now being almost halved to £3,850 a year

    So part time workers then. Why should they have their income topped up ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    watford30 said:

    Charles said:

    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 withdrawal

    But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
    He might fiddle with pensions allowances again, which would be highly irritating.

    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.
    I'd go with that. Say a 1% tax on residential property tax.
    For Foreign owners, or everyone else?
    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.
    From a straight economics basis, that is absolutely the right way forward.

    Of course, it would be unpopular with a lot of people.
    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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    watford30 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?

    TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
    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.
    Owls is also a 'sponging' pensioner.
    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.

    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.
    So it will be an OAP and not a benefit? Interesting!
    An OAP is a benefit, the most expensive benefit by far.

    I thought numerous posters had explained this yesterday
    Badly and mistakenly. It is a state pension that some people hav epaid dearly for and which others who have paid nothing towards get anyway.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    JEO said:

    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.

    It would replace council tax, so it would clearly be a negative for people living on their own (particularly for retired people).

    Of course, if you believe that it is the job of the tax system to encourage the efficient allocation of resources, then it is economically beneficial. That is, it would raise the cost of living in a house that was too big for you.

    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.
    If you have a wealth tax, people just park their wealth abroad. It only really works on property.
    The French system - like the US with income taxes - requires you to report assets held worldwide.

    Look: I know it's politically unacceptable, so it's never going to happen, but from an economic perspective it is important to ensure our taxations systems encourages "the efficient allocation of scarce resources". Right now, we tax activities we wish to encourage, and subsidise ones we wish to discourage. That is clearly economically bonkers.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    I see the BBC is doing its normal biased reporting again:

    Guy Delauney: "These are people just caught in politics between the countries."

    No, they are people trying to illegally enter countries and getting angry when those countries enforce borders.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited October 2015
    watford30 said:

    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.

    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 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.
    Of course - and as @rcs1000 said it would be very unpopular.

    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 :sunglasses:

    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...
  • isamisam Posts: 40,730
    Douglas Carswell has been tweeting praise for Liam Fox this morning as Fox has been criticising Osbornes economic plan in a speech ... And they're both on the Daily Politics at 12
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    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.
    Disgusting idea that would lead to massive avoidance - buy gold bars and stick in a deposit box.

    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.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited October 2015
    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.

    It would replace council tax, so it would clearly be a negative for people living on their own (particularly for retired people).

    Of course, if you believe that it is the job of the tax system to encourage the efficient allocation of resources, then it is economically beneficial. That is, it would raise the cost of living in a house that was too big for you.

    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.
    The French system only kicks in above €800,000, so that would probably be considered fair by the majority. Still a massive vote loser in the South East mind.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Charles 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.

    It would be a nice symmetry to tax the rich more (or reduce their taxes less) to mitigate the impact of working tax credit withdrawal

    But would be better if he could think of a way to hit the rich rather than aspiring professionals
    If GO can spin whatever he decides to do (if anything) so that it looks a fair response ("fair" is of course subjective) then those affected by the change may (?) be mollified. Presuming this will be the better off of some hue, where would they go anyway? This is true in spades of anyone with aspiration.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    TGOHF said:

    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.
    Disgusting idea that would lead to massive avoidance - buy gold bars and stick in a deposit box.

    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.
    Isn't buying gold the last thing you'd do if you were taxed on assets :D ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    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.

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    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.

    It would replace council tax, so it would clearly be a negative for people living on their own (particularly for retired people).

    Of course, if you believe that it is the job of the tax system to encourage the efficient allocation of resources, then it is economically beneficial. That is, it would raise the cost of living in a house that was too big for you.

    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.
    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?)

    The advantage of houses is that they are hard to move, and there is a publicly reported valuation at the time of last trade.

    I'd look to the Californian system of using last trade + an inflation linked annual increase.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF said:

    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.
    Disgusting idea that would lead to massive avoidance - buy gold bars and stick in a deposit box.

    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.
    Isn't buying gold the last thing you'd do if you were taxed on assets :D ?
    Not if you hid them - or wore them. Who is going to come snooping around the jewellery boxes of the nation ?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,716
    edited October 2015
    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.

    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.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    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.

    It would replace council tax, so it would clearly be a negative for people living on their own (particularly for retired people).

    Of course, if you believe that it is the job of the tax system to encourage the efficient allocation of resources, then it is economically beneficial. That is, it would raise the cost of living in a house that was too big for you.

    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.
    If you have a wealth tax, people just park their wealth abroad. It only really works on property.
    The French system - like the US with income taxes - requires you to report assets held worldwide.

    Look: I know it's politically unacceptable, so it's never going to happen, but from an economic perspective it is important to ensure our taxations systems encourages "the efficient allocation of scarce resources". Right now, we tax activities we wish to encourage, and subsidise ones we wish to discourage. That is clearly economically bonkers.
    So if you're rich, you leave France and take your money with you. The Laffer curve for wealth peaks on the far left, as no-one else has a wealth tax. And even if they did, it would be incredibly easy to stash it in tax havens.

    I sympathise with your aims, but the problem with that particular solution goes beyond political unacceptability. A wealth tax on property works, however: you'd just have to bring it in at the very top end to start. And it should probably be done on share of land value so as not to decimate the construction sector.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    TGOHF said:

    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.
    Disgusting idea that would lead to massive avoidance - buy gold bars and stick in a deposit box.

    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.
    Actually, I wouldn't go for a wealth tax, I'd make it gross assets, to discourage over-leveraging.

    As an aside, you'd still need to pay tax on your gold bars. But you wouldn't want to own a non-productive asset like a gold bar; you'd prefer a productive one like shares in a company that pay you a dividend.

    In other words, it discourages people from owning assets that do not provide them with an economic return. And for people who under-utilise assets, it encourages - for example - you to rent them out.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    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.
    So investors are owning them and holding for pure capital appreciation reasons even if they can't rent ?

    Aren't rental yields in London actually quite low at the moment too...
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    JEO said:

    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.

    It would replace council tax, so it would clearly be a negative for people living on their own (particularly for retired people).

    Of course, if you believe that it is the job of the tax system to encourage the efficient allocation of resources, then it is economically beneficial. That is, it would raise the cost of living in a house that was too big for you.

    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.
    If you have a wealth tax, people just park their wealth abroad. It only really works on property.
    I'm curious as to how exactly a wealth tax on property would affect the many thousands of homes owned by the super rich through anonymous holding companies based in tax havens.

    This is a real problem in Central London.

    I suspect that the very people who should be taxed will avoid it, and the indigenous homeowner would take the hit.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    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.

    Depends when they bought it - I'd base it on last traded value (so assuming it was a while ago they wouldn't pay current market value). You could also look at a tax free band.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    TGOHF said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF said:

    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.
    Disgusting idea that would lead to massive avoidance - buy gold bars and stick in a deposit box.

    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.
    Isn't buying gold the last thing you'd do if you were taxed on assets :D ?
    Not if you hid them - or wore them. Who is going to come snooping around the jewellery boxes of the nation ?
    I'm not sure there is any evidence that the French own lots of gold bars to avoid the wealth tax.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Morris_Dancer

    'Mr. Zims, about 20% are Syrian [according to a few sources, including the BBC's Mark Urban].

    Many are economic migrants, a lot of whom come from the Balkans.'


    Do you have any idea how much longer Merkel has in office ?


  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    BJO When your Grandchildren reach 70 they will be paying for their parents pensions..not yours...apparently..I am still working at 75 and paying substantial taxes .. so I am obviously picking up the tab for some old wrinkly... maybe you..

    I am also 70+ and still paying tax (I hesitate to attach an adjective). I agree with your post but would like to point out that you are not picking up the tab for this old wrinkly. I will share with you that Kitchener came to mind when I first read your post.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited October 2015
    TGOHF said:

    =
    Not if you hid them

    That'd be evasion if such a tax were in place.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    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.
    So investors are owning them and holding for pure capital appreciation reasons even if they can't rent ?

    Aren't rental yields in London actually quite low at the moment too...
    Prime London rental yields are well below 3%.

    It was why I rented for a long time.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    rcs1000 said:

    TGOHF said:

    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.
    Disgusting idea that would lead to massive avoidance - buy gold bars and stick in a deposit box.

    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.
    Actually, I wouldn't go for a wealth tax, I'd make it gross assets, to discourage over-leveraging.

    As an aside, you'd still need to pay tax on your gold bars. But you wouldn't want to own a non-productive asset like a gold bar; you'd prefer a productive one like shares in a company that pay you a dividend.

    In other words, it discourages people from owning assets that do not provide them with an economic return. And for people who under-utilise assets, it encourages - for example - you to rent them out.
    Avoidance will be easy unless its made of bricks, pays a dividend or has wheels.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    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.
    So investors are owning them and holding for pure capital appreciation reasons even if they can't rent ?

    Aren't rental yields in London actually quite low at the moment too...
    A lot of central London is an insurance policy.

    e.g. if the daughter of a Ukrainian mayor buys a house in Kensington for £70m and her father is prosecuted for corruption, she can always flee to the west and sell that house for £60m as an emergency reserve.

    Allegedly.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    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.
    It would be staggering in Peckham, but Mayfair, home of the super rich in one the worlds most expensive cities? Not really. I'd be surprised if the numbers were any different a decade, 20 or 30 years ago.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    watford30 said:

    JEO said:

    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.

    It would replace council tax, so it would clearly be a negative for people living on their own (particularly for retired people).

    Of course, if you believe that it is the job of the tax system to encourage the efficient allocation of resources, then it is economically beneficial. That is, it would raise the cost of living in a house that was too big for you.

    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.
    If you have a wealth tax, people just park their wealth abroad. It only really works on property.
    I'm curious as to how exactly a wealth tax on property would affect the many thousands of homes owned by the super rich through anonymous holding companies based in tax havens.

    This is a real problem in Central London.

    I suspect that the very people who should be taxed will avoid it, and the indigenous homeowner would take the hit.
    Not so easy. If you have a house on which tax hasn't been paid you can take a lien on the property or, in extremis, force repossession.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    In the old days tories believed that what you did with legally bought and owned property was your own effing business, and that if you didn;t have enough money to spend, you spent less.

    Judging by Liam Fox's comments today, that type of toryism might be making a comeback.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    rcs1000 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF said:

    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.
    Disgusting idea that would lead to massive avoidance - buy gold bars and stick in a deposit box.

    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.
    Isn't buying gold the last thing you'd do if you were taxed on assets :D ?
    Not if you hid them - or wore them. Who is going to come snooping around the jewellery boxes of the nation ?
    I'm not sure there is any evidence that the French own lots of gold bars to avoid the wealth tax.
    They just move to Belgium and Switzerland.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    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.
    So investors are owning them and holding for pure capital appreciation reasons even if they can't rent ?
    Yes, because it's considered a safe investment for people who want to get their cash away from their own government. Other countries around the world have somewhat relaxed attitudes to confiscating assets of those who upset their leaders.

    Anecdote - I used to work for a property company in Dubai, their customers were all Russian and Nigerian, and they really didn't care too much about what the returns on investment would be. They were more interested in something they could either sell or move into if they needed to get out of their own country. The *really* rich from those nations didn't go to Dubai to invest, they went to London.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Zims, no, but one suspects her migration madness will not extend her political life expectancy.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    JEO said:

    If we said during the campaign we wouldn't cut working tax credits, we shouldn't cut them. We can maintain the freeze beyond 2017, but shouldn't reduce the taper rape or the point where it starts.

    I also agree that the triple lock should be removed, but again this was a pledge made during the campaign.

    The Triple Lock is guaranteed until 2020, I wonder if any of the parties will say they are ending it in their manifesto for the next election.
    First priority "get elected", second will be second by a distance so counts only to the extent that any commitment to it was instrumental in achieving first priority.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited October 2015
    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.

    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.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @standardnews: Tom Watson is 'being lined up by unions to replace Jeremy Corbyn' http://t.co/CEEZ4WchlP http://t.co/lJ90Q8bepV
Sign In or Register to comment.