''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.
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.
It's more a case of the Tories missing a credible opposition. Without anyone serious to hold them to account they have less reason to think through the implications of their decisions.
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.
The only people missing LDs are the LDs - around 50 or so missing since last May
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?
I've no interest in participating in the "OAP - benefit or not? debate" but I've often wondered why all receipts (cash or in kind) are not taxable. Personal allowance could be increased to compensate the poorest. I'm sure I'll be told why this cannot happen but why differentiate between different kinds of income, earned, investment, benefits, freebies?
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...
Given the bubble in prices, holding them for medium term capital accumulation seems misguided. Surely it's more likely that they're an insurance policy on more than one level (i.e. a physical as well as financial bolthole).
Edit - just seen that various others have already made this point. Apologies.
''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.
TBF, Osborne thought he had done enough to stamp it out.
Properties more than £1m pay £7K per year, increasing to £23K above £2m and further above that.
They also have to pay a 15% stamp duty on purchases and CGT at UK rates when/if they sell.
These rates are actually a significant increase on the original amounts because a large number of owners chose not to "de-envelope" but to pay the penalty tax rate instead
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?
I've no interest in participating in the "OAP - benefit or not? debate" but I've often wondered why all receipts (cash or in kind) are not taxable. Personal allowance could be increased to compensate the poorest. I'm sure I'll be told why this cannot happen but why differentiate between different kinds of income, earned, investment, benefits, freebies?
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.
Good. Taking a few days off school to see a part of the world at the only time parents can take it off is not the same as truancy and should not be viewed as such. When I was young I was taken off for holidays during term time and it did my education no harm whatsoever.
It is not just about prices during term time versus holiday prices either. It frustrates me that it gets dumbed down to that level whenever it comes up.
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
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.
Isn't this a mansion tax on hovels too?
Mansion taxes are a bad idea because of the threshold effect, not because of the principle of taxing property more
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.
It would be unpopular with a lot of people who: 1. Have a high propensity to turn out to vote, and 2. Have a high propensity to vote Tory when they do turn out.
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
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.
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
Mr. Taffys, for clarity, I didn't mean 'legacy' in a good sense, but I do agree her motivation isn't reason or what's best for her country or the EU, but the desire to be seen to be good.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 30, to expand on my point, let's say I'm an artist. And I've got half a dozen unsold paintings, which are all fantastic. Would you tax me on those?
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.
Not sure I entirely agree. It is not at all clear that Turkey is what we would define as a "safe" country. They don't have bombers threatening to kill them yes but there are millions of refugees there that don't have anywhere to settle down, build a home and do any of the normal things that we would consider as standard. Not only that but Turkey themselves are quite vicious to certain minorities like the Kurds. If you've lost your home, your livelihood and everything you don't just want to retreat until you're no longer shot at but until you can rebuild.
That doesn't necessarily expand to all the other nations between Greece and Germany but does potentially for Turkey. Erdogan's Turkey is going backwards fast.
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
It wasn't a question of principle about including them, more a question about the forced sell mechanism.
These are documents for which there is no obvious market so there is no way of ascribing a reasonably sensible valuation (as you can with a Old Master, by comparison). But if we get the number "wrong" then we could be forced to sell something which really only has value to use / as a public resource.
That's why I prefer a property tax to a more general wealth tax.
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
Firstly, I don't hold with a wealth tax other than death duties, which is more equivalent to an income tax.
However, that said, if historic documents are held privately then yes, they should be taxed the same as anything else. However, as with other items of national value or significance, one option would be to enable any documents in that position which are catalogued and made publicly available on demand (subject to reasonable notice), to be tax-free as essentially held in trust for the nation.
I'm off for a bit, but a cunning spot I made (both now and 3 years ago): the complete works of Plutarch cost £20, but are free, all 1,000+ pages, on Kindle.
Just search 'Plutarch Arthur' [translator's first name is Arthur] and it'll come up.
I was flicking through TA Dodge's biography of Hannibal for other sources when I saw him mention Plutarch's Lives included Fabius (presumably the Cunctator) and Marcellus, and then found the full work on Amazon, only to discover I'd downloaded it 3 years ago and forgotten I did so...
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
Firstly, I don't hold with a wealth tax other than death duties, which is more equivalent to an income tax.
However, that said, if historic documents are held privately then yes, they should be taxed the same as anything else. However, as with other items of national value or significance, one option would be to enable any documents in that position which are catalogued and made publicly available on demand (subject to reasonable notice), to be tax-free as essentially held in trust for the nation.
We do actually assign a value to heritage assets, including paperwork, in our balance sheet. But the issue is with the forced sale provision, nothing else.
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
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.
I might agree with Charles, but only for high-end properties. I think family homes should be exempt.
Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
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
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...
Charging non-resident foreign property owners on property assets above the UK average property value at 1% a year would be politically popular IMHO.
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
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...
Charging non-resident foreign property owners on property assets above the UK average property value at 1% a year would be politically popular IMHO.
I agree - I'd probably look at a PPR exemption, possibly, but not do it on foreign residency (so BTL gets hit as well)
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
Fantastic! I'm more of an antiquarian book/bound manuscript man myself, but that includes accounts, commonplace books etc. Early banking history is a tremendously popular area right now.
Let me know if you ever need anyone to bounce questions off - I might not be the right person, but will know who is.
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
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...
Charging non-resident foreign property owners on property assets above the UK average property value at 1% a year would be politically popular IMHO.
I agree - I'd probably look at a PPR exemption, possibly, but not do it on foreign residency (so BTL gets hit as well)
Hitting BTL further would be less popular than stuffing foreign property owners for some extra wedge. Wallop them first.
And go one step further - include anyone holding UK property through a foreign vehicle for tax purposes. And perhaps consider those holding property through trusts.
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
Fantastic! I'm more of an antiquarian book/bound manuscript man myself, but that includes accounts, commonplace books etc. Early banking history is a tremendously popular area right now.
Let me know if you ever need anyone to bounce questions off - I might not be the right person, but will know who is.
If you want to PM me, I can get you in touch with our archivist.
Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
I agree - I'd probably look at a PPR exemption, possibly, but not do it on foreign residency (so BTL gets hit as well)
Hitting BTL further would be less popular than stuffing foreign property owners for some extra wedge. Wallop them first.
And go one step further - include anyone holding UK property through a foreign vehicle for tax purposes. And perhaps consider those holding property through trusts.
UK property held through foreign vehicles is already addressed through the Envelope Tax
Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
Win bakeoff ?
It's a strange question.
What has Islam done more than Muslims?
What can we say Christianity has done rather than Christians?
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.
We gave the Bank of England a 300th birthday present of a pamphlet arguing that it was a bad idea to set one up as it would only result in excessive government debt, inflation and devaluation...
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Why not? Shouldn't all assets be treated equally?
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
Firstly, I don't hold with a wealth tax other than death duties, which is more equivalent to an income tax.
However, that said, if historic documents are held privately then yes, they should be taxed the same as anything else. However, as with other items of national value or significance, one option would be to enable any documents in that position which are catalogued and made publicly available on demand (subject to reasonable notice), to be tax-free as essentially held in trust for the nation.
We do actually assign a value to heritage assets, including paperwork, in our balance sheet. But the issue is with the forced sale provision, nothing else.
I'd tend to agree, although the reality is with, say Council Tax that if you can't afford it and you have no way of increasing your income then you have to sell and move, so the practice - if not the principle as such - is already there.
But that said, I'd go back to my earlier suggestion that for items of historic value there should be some means of excluding them from liability providing that they're made available for the public. For artworks, that might be a permanent loan to galleries unless there's access at source. For documents, it might be a scheme administered by the British Library where the documents are made available for research.
I agree that you wouldn't want forced sale (still less, destruction) but at the same time, if this was a route gone down - and for all sorts of reasons, it'd be a bad idea - then an asset is an asset.
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.
We gave the Bank of England a 300th birthday present of a pamphlet arguing that it was a bad idea to set one up as it would only result in excessive government debt, inflation and devaluation...
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
Before it was rescued by the ING, Barings had a superb archive, and a professional archivist to look after it. They had a display case outside the private dining rooms where they entertained clients, and each week the archivist would display documents of interest.
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.
We gave the Bank of England a 300th birthday present of a pamphlet arguing that it was a bad idea to set one up as it would only result in excessive government debt, inflation and devaluation...
Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
Islam is a religion not an individual. What has Christianity done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years? Or Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc?
I agree - I'd probably look at a PPR exemption, possibly, but not do it on foreign residency (so BTL gets hit as well)
Hitting BTL further would be less popular than stuffing foreign property owners for some extra wedge. Wallop them first.
And go one step further - include anyone holding UK property through a foreign vehicle for tax purposes. And perhaps consider those holding property through trusts.
UK property held through foreign vehicles is already addressed through the Envelope Tax
There are ways round it though aren't there, with de-enveloping, converting corporate structures into offshore trusts etc.
Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
Win bakeoff ?
It's a strange question.
What has Islam done more than Muslims?
What can we say Christianity has done rather than Christians?
I think the problem is not what Islam has done but rather that having a traditional religion in a country and introducing a fast growing new (to the country) religion causes the same tensions that any insurgency cause the establishment
Does anyone know where Hunchman is? The second global sovereign debt crisis was due to have kicked off on the 7th of October at 3:11pm...
I was thinking about that the other day. I think in fairness he also said "October" so he has a few days left but it is not looking good for him. One day he will be right of course. It's just a matter of time.
PT Christianity has been long established in the UK and it is recognised as a Christian country, its benefits or otherwise are well established long before the last 20 years Islam and its Muslim devotees are a recent input into the country,in relative terms. I just wondered if there had been any visual or cultural benefits to the long established Christian population..
PT Christianity has been long established in the UK and it is recognised as a Christian country, its benefits or otherwise are well established long before the last 20 years Islam and its Muslim devotees are a recent input into the country,in relative terms. I just wondered if there had been any visual or cultural benefits to the long established Christian population..
Religion has helped shape history but in my eyes it is an irrelevant irritant now. We can disagree but since you are proposing the last 20 years I can't think of what Christianity has done within the last 20 years (as opposed to historically) either.
If you expand to Muslims then many Muslims have contributed a hell of a lot to this country. Some have set up and ran successful businesses, charities, become global leading athletes, become doctors, nurses, lawyers and productive members of every single part of our society.
Not all have of course but that's the same in any group.
Good, it is a shocking injustice to even suggest that even if victorious in court a publication should have to pay costs for both parties. Terrible attack on the freedom of the press there that would open the media up to a never ending stream of nuisance lawsuits.
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 ?
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.
Not much point in leaving evidence of what you're trying to avoid (evade?) tax on.
PT Those successful people you cite are individuals and are pursuing their chosen careers which appear to have very little to do with the teachings of Islam..We know what Christianity has brought to the UK over many centuries and it now appears to have settled down into an orderly religion which seems to suit most of the population...but what has the religion of Islam brought to the country ..and to the country's benefit
PT Those successful people you cite are individuals and are pursuing their chosen careers which appear to have very little to do with the teachings of Islam..We know what Christianity has brought to the UK over many centuries and it now appears to have settled down into an orderly religion which seems to suit most of the population...but what has the religion of Islam brought to the country ..and to the country's benefit
Look at the history of all the religions, there's some murky stuff in all of them.
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.
Isn't this a mansion tax on hovels too?
Mansion taxes are a bad idea because of the threshold effect, not because of the principle of taxing property more
So you'd be happy with a tax on hovels. I'm sure you would be in a minority of house owners of any stripe holding that view.
Excellent indeed. Freedom of the press is one of the most fundamental signs of democracy. It is shameful that we came so close to legislating against that freedom.
Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
PT Those successful people you cite are individuals and are pursuing their chosen careers which appear to have very little to do with the teachings of Islam..We know what Christianity has brought to the UK over many centuries and it now appears to have settled down into an orderly religion which seems to suit most of the population...but what has the religion of Islam brought to the country ..and to the country's benefit
Of course an individuals actions are their own that is a truism and is the same to everyone.
You're asking an impossible to answer question if you ascribe all positives to the individuals and all negatives to the religion then you're setting up a rhetorical question.
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 ?
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.
Not much point in leaving evidence of what you're trying to avoid (evade?) tax on.
The French are expert at hiding wealth from prying eyes.
Total curiosity..can anyone on PB list just five things that the religion of Islam has done to benefit the indigenous population of the UK over the past 20 years...and please don't include curry houses..
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
Isam different argument and nothing wrong with it .. but what has the Muslim Religion done in the UK to benefit the incumbent population of the UK..Simple question...
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?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
That must be fascinating to see, but what is meant by 'modern era'? Were some form of cheques used much earlier in history, before modern banking?
You asked about the contribution of "Islam and its Muslim devotees" and the responses from multiple people have included: winning bake off, supplementing our cricket base, and people who have set up and ran successful businesses, charities, become global leading athletes, become doctors, nurses, lawyers and productive members of every single part of our society
That is what its devotees have brought to the country. Accept it or not, ask them how their religion has affected what they've brought to us, up to you. But asked and answered.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
PT Bollox.. you are confusing individuals with the influence of a major world religion on the population of the UK..running a race and doing some baking on a pisspoor TV show amounts to nothing in the real world..
PT Bollox.. you are confusing individuals with the influence of a major world religion on the population of the UK..running a race and doing some baking on a pisspoor TV show amounts to nothing in the real world..
You asked about its adherents, these are its adherents. Don't ask the question if you wont' accept the answer. Up to you if you think athletics and bake off etc amount nothing at all in the real world, I suspect they bring happiness and entertainment to millions in this country and last I checked entertainment and happiness are not nothing.
But I suppose in your eyes doctors, nurses, teachers, businesses leaders and the other examples also amount to nothing?
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
...
Decades, yes. Centuries, no. In most countries, 'peace' only existed because one side imposed a dominance that was tantamount to, and in some places actually, a monopoly won by the sword and maintained by it (in the hand of the state).
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
Comments
Karie Murphy, Falkirk, Unite, Revenge.
Edit - just seen that various others have already made this point. Apologies.
Properties more than £1m pay £7K per year, increasing to £23K above £2m and further above that.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/annual-tax-on-enveloped-dwellings-the-basics
They also have to pay a 15% stamp duty on purchases and CGT at UK rates when/if they sell.
These rates are actually a significant increase on the original amounts because a large number of owners chose not to "de-envelope" but to pay the penalty tax rate instead
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim76101.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035hzv0
It is not just about prices during term time versus holiday prices either. It frustrates me that it gets dumbed down to that level whenever it comes up.
M'Lord, my daughter goes to school once a year, as regular as clockwork...
1. Have a high propensity to turn out to vote, and
2. Have a high propensity to vote Tory when they do turn out.
So it won't happen.
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
Which is of course the most important thing. Not what happens to Europe after she's gone,
.
http://www.thenational.scot/cartoon/the-cult.36
Why differentiate between ancient family documents, and some old granny's house stuffed with her memories, if they have a value. Sentimentality shouldn't enter into the equation.
Mr. Taffys, for clarity, I didn't mean 'legacy' in a good sense, but I do agree her motivation isn't reason or what's best for her country or the EU, but the desire to be seen to be good.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 30, to expand on my point, let's say I'm an artist. And I've got half a dozen unsold paintings, which are all fantastic. Would you tax me on those?
That doesn't necessarily expand to all the other nations between Greece and Germany but does potentially for Turkey. Erdogan's Turkey is going backwards fast.
These are documents for which there is no obvious market so there is no way of ascribing a reasonably sensible valuation (as you can with a Old Master, by comparison). But if we get the number "wrong" then we could be forced to sell something which really only has value to use / as a public resource.
That's why I prefer a property tax to a more general wealth tax.
And why the forced sale mechanism is iniquitous
However, that said, if historic documents are held privately then yes, they should be taxed the same as anything else. However, as with other items of national value or significance, one option would be to enable any documents in that position which are catalogued and made publicly available on demand (subject to reasonable notice), to be tax-free as essentially held in trust for the nation.
Just search 'Plutarch Arthur' [translator's first name is Arthur] and it'll come up.
I was flicking through TA Dodge's biography of Hannibal for other sources when I saw him mention Plutarch's Lives included Fabius (presumably the Cunctator) and Marcellus, and then found the full work on Amazon, only to discover I'd downloaded it 3 years ago and forgotten I did so...
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
Let me know if you ever need anyone to bounce questions off - I might not be the right person, but will know who is.
And go one step further - include anyone holding UK property through a foreign vehicle for tax purposes. And perhaps consider those holding property through trusts.
On the day that the Dutch managers from ING turned up to take over the bank, the archivist chose to display a document from the early nineteenth century detailing Barings' bailing out of the Netherlands government.
Our main paperwork is 300+ years of accounts...
What has Islam done more than Muslims?
What can we say Christianity has done rather than Christians?
But that said, I'd go back to my earlier suggestion that for items of historic value there should be some means of excluding them from liability providing that they're made available for the public. For artworks, that might be a permanent loan to galleries unless there's access at source. For documents, it might be a scheme administered by the British Library where the documents are made available for research.
I agree that you wouldn't want forced sale (still less, destruction) but at the same time, if this was a route gone down - and for all sorts of reasons, it'd be a bad idea - then an asset is an asset.
Other religions gave up the right to primacy over secular law long ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/11940552/Leveson-law-shelved-amid-fears-over-threat-to-journalism.html
If you expand to Muslims then many Muslims have contributed a hell of a lot to this country. Some have set up and ran successful businesses, charities, become global leading athletes, become doctors, nurses, lawyers and productive members of every single part of our society.
Not all have of course but that's the same in any group.
You're asking an impossible to answer question if you ascribe all positives to the individuals and all negatives to the religion then you're setting up a rhetorical question.
That is what its devotees have brought to the country. Accept it or not, ask them how their religion has affected what they've brought to us, up to you. But asked and answered.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
But I suppose in your eyes doctors, nurses, teachers, businesses leaders and the other examples also amount to nothing?
I agree. It's bullsh*t.
As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.