Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mightytharg

  1. I'm not sure about the punishment for metal theft here (but here on this bank and shoal of time), but I'm pretty sure that if the big guy gets his way you'll burn in hell for all eternity for that comment.
  2. The creditors would know the Greeks were lying (they obviously have stacks of gold and money - just look what they are giving to their retired civil servants). Therefore our navies could simply blockade their ports until they paid up.
  3. I was going to reply to the idiotic article you posted, but I noticed this in the comments section which says perfectly: "This is utter nonsense. How is the Government choosing not to levy a tax a "subsidy"? You might equally say that since the repeal of Beard Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard_tax the Government has been subsidising beards. I am genuinely astonished at the muddle-headed, politically-motivated tripe that I have just read."
  4. Well, imagine you own a home and owe £200,000. Fast forward 10 years and you have exactly the same house and owe £220,000 (base rate + 0.5 % mortgage). Inflation has been running at 5% so the £220,000 in 2022 is only worth £135,000 in the 2012 pounds. So you are up £65,000 (even if you didn't make any money renting) + bizarrely you have a tax write-off of £20,000 on the money you "lost" while paying below-inflation mortgage interest.
  5. A typical Buy To Let mortgage costs less than the rate of inflation. So even if the house is empty, the Landlord is making money. Then if he also gets some rent and a bucket of tax advantages he's in clover. Sorry, but it's true.
  6. But that's a good thing isn't it? We shouldn't tolerate our hated Eurocrats trying to default and at the same time steal from the CDS buyers. That's dishonest. As a side note, it will be great if we can unify the treasures of the acropolis in a single location. I'll queue up to see them in the British Museum.
  7. No-one's talking about punishing anyone. You would just have to pay the same as everyone else and have the same security. You wouldn't even have to pay back the £600 a year or whatever you said it was that you have been scrounging up to now. Since you mention the huge bail-out the socialists gave away, you must be aware that we can no longer afford to give you all these hand-outs.
  8. Why do you think subletting a house is such a terrible thing? Scrounger A - lives in a massively subsidised house and comes on HPC to mock the people who are forced to pay for it. Scrounger B - scrounges exactly the same amount but chooses to rent it out to someone. Why is Scrounger B regarded as morally worse than Scrounger A? Assuming neither of them actually needs a subsidised house.
  9. Wouldn't it be fairer to levy a tax on all houses below a certain price? Then people who suffered from high prices would get some recompense from lower taxation. Say, a tax on houses < £100,000. Remember that someone buying a £2 million pound house pays £2 million in tax already.
  10. That option is here: To share your views, get clicking on the sub-categories below, or submit a private contribution to our inbox at [email protected]
  11. I can't see the part where I said she was single or childless. Can you point it out to me? I suggest that if we can afford to give £45,000 per year to a Romanian woman who has several children and may or may not be married but to whom we owe nothing, then we can also afford to give the money we owe back to the people who loaned it to us. If we are forced to choose one or the other, I'd recommend paying back the people we've borrowed from as being the more honourable path.
  12. Umm No. High house prices are a bad thing. Someone should start a site about it...
  13. Or spending less. We cannot seriously pretend that we have enough money to give £45,000/year to a Romanian big issue sellers, but at the same time cannot afford to pay back the money we owe, I realise default is mostly a transfer of wealth from poor private sector pensioners to rich public sector pensioners - so I can see why public sector scumbags like the idea. But suggesting it's a better option than wasting a bit less money is absurd.
  14. Because the people should be free. The land belongs to them, not "the public purse". These are the police who won a court case today saying they can assault peaceful protesters using "kettling". Exactly the sort of problem that your ideas would make worse
  15. The ordinary person does pay a below average share of tax, but they don't own an above average share of land. I'm sorry, but your proposed system is horribly unfair. Imagine if Waitrose opened down the road from you and you were forced from your home because it increased your land value. Or a big company could destroy your community, just by building in one area and then buying up each house as the tax increases caused your neigbours to leave. The worst part of it would be the perverse incentives where anyone who improved their surrounding community would be punished and anyone who damaged it would be rewarded. Community associations would spring up and organise volunteers to litter and spray graffiti. I suppose Chav areas already benefit from this via reduced housing costs, but this would double their gains. What exactly is your agenda? I suppose you hope to be a beneficiary of all this tax that is collected. Do you work for the government or live somewhere horrible?
  16. So a socialist president pays out excessive unemployment payments (perhaps because a disproportionate amount of the recipients share his skin tone). This proves that unbridled capitalism is evil. I agree that the patent trolls and walled gardeners at apple are evil, but not for the reasons you suggest.
  17. I thought you meant the otherway around - the tax would force people with "underused" land to build on it. So do you see it more like the old window tax that made people brick up their windows? But this would be more general - anything you did to vandalise your house or land would reduce your tax bill? If it was a bedsit in Hull or a bedsit on the Thames would the price be the same or different? I still don't get the idea of making people suffer twice (once through high house price and once through high taxes) or not at all. Is it a bit like taxing the poor at 60% and the rich at 20%, a sort of reverse progressive thing?
  18. I don't get it.Forest owners should be taxed into oblivion and their forests seized, but that's OK because our benevolent government will set up National Parks where they will house Party Members or whatever their favoured people are that week in unparalleled subsidised luxury, and maybe allow us to walk in small parts of the area? Is the main idea to make Southerners who already suffer high house prices, to doubly suffer from higher taxes, while their scrounging Northern neighbours benefit from higher handouts as well as lower taxes and prices? Seems a crazy idea. If you want to make things fairer you could abolish the CAP, SMI, absurd levels of housing benefit, and bird-blender subsidies. This would punish the land-owners and mean taxes could be lowered. It wouldn't require any bizarre bribes to persuade people to live in grim conditions.
  19. So an unproductive bit of land, say a forest full of red squirrels and other rare and cuddlesome creatures, would be taxed at a higher rate than a productive bit of land like a concrete carpark. This would encourage progress and help spread communism.
  20. I don't understand. Why just do this when times are bad? Surely when times are good you can also pay yourself a low salary and load up on tax credits and housing benefit?
  21. Well just when you hoped things were getting better... Public Sector workers decide that selling the big issue gives Romanians the right to housing benefits. £45,800 in total benefits in this example: Romanian Big Issue Seller So remember next time you see a City worker buying a copy of the big issue, the seller may better off than the buyer! Lucky the UK has plenty of money.
  22. It used to be means tested, but the public sector scum who did the testing paid themselves so much that it turned out to be cheaper to just give it to all the crinklies. Another advantage is it doesn't reward the spendthrift and punish the responsible.
  23. The idea of the Tobin tax is similar to quantitative easing, its effect is to transfer money from private sector pensioners (who have to pay the tax) to public sector pensioners who get to spend the money raised. You can see why the governments and civil services are all for it.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.