Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
RichB

Those Who Benefitted The Most Should Contribute The Most

Recommended Posts

A refrain I keep hearing.

Yet almost no-one seems to be suggesting what appears to be the obvious - a windfall tax retrospectively applied to all profits from property sales over the last 5 years.

Seems reasonable - those that benefitted the most would be paying the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A refrain I keep hearing.

Yet almost no-one seems to be suggesting what appears to be the obvious - a windfall tax retrospectively applied to all profits from property sales over the last 5 years.

Seems reasonable - those that benefitted the most would be paying the most.

Marvellous idea i'll be on the first flight back to pay my dues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A refrain I keep hearing.

Yet almost no-one seems to be suggesting what appears to be the obvious - a windfall tax retrospectively applied to all profits from property sales over the last 5 years.

Seems reasonable - those that benefitted the most would be paying the most.

Those twigs dont come for free you know. How would you prove people didn't add £XXXXXXXXX worth of value to the house.

Any speculation on house prices is a terrible thing and should be curbed by taxationon profits from sales but not sure how you could do that retrospectively. I sold my last house for 10K more than I paid for it, but had stamp duty,estate agents etc to pay for, I effectively made a loss, can I offset that against any future profit ?

Edited by TheCountOfNowhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 2 sets of people benefited from high house prices, those that cashed out or those that lent the money and made huge bonuses.

The majority of those who sold will have bought another over inflated priced house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A refrain I keep hearing.

Yet almost no-one seems to be suggesting what appears to be the obvious - a windfall tax retrospectively applied to all profits from property sales over the last 5 years.

Seems reasonable - those that benefitted the most would be paying the most.

Does this include STR's?

What about the old people that are having their homes sold by the local council to pay the health fees? Are you willing to pay more income tax like basic rate of 45% to fund the care for the old people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the main problem about the taxing those that earn more is this:

60% of the workforce is employed by small and medium sized businesses.

the average small business employs 4.5 people. 95% of small businesses empoy less than 5 people.

estimated 60-80% of jobs growth comes from small businesses.

people naturally equate higher earners with corporates and executive of large companies but thats not true.

a lot of higher earners are small business owners and employees of small businesses.

500,000 new businesses are setup every year.

stifling this sector will also stifle the economy. if theyre the ones driving the economy, its wrong to assume taxing them more is "fairer", because it can have a negative impact on the overall economy if you over-tax the wrong areas.

Edited by mfp123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this include STR's?

What about the old people that are having their homes sold by the local council to pay the health fees? Are you willing to pay more income tax like basic rate of 45% to fund the care for the old people?

Basic rate 45%? That's just what we have right now (20% + 12% + 13%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Does this include STR's?<br /><br />What about the old people that are having their homes sold by the local council to pay the health fees?  Are you willing to pay more income tax like basic rate of 45% to fund the care for the old people?<br />

It all boils down to Company Director/Chief Executive/Board/Sharehoilder greed by keeping themselves awash in the amounts of cash they are now accustomed to, avoiding paying moral/social UK taxes by offshoring/killing off Blitish jobs and throwing more and more people on the dole.

The workers who are left get shouldered with the tax burdens (whilst the thieving Elites manipulate UK population to turn on other innocent members within UK society.)

Now who is to blame - corrupt 'paid up' Govt shills and other secretive handshakers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not so much about raising additional tax it is reducing the dependency of those that claim on the state...

This is becoming yet another elephant in the room and will be one that will at one point need to be tackled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this include STR's?

As long as they benefitted, yes of course, a windfall tax is clearly appropriate, perhaps 20% or so of all housing gains over the captial gains threshold aggregated over the period the property was held.

Sure I'd lose a small % of my str fund, but I reckon that is only fair, after all I benefitted from it. Not as much as I might have benefitted if it (hpi) _hadn't_ been allowed to get so badly out of hand by that fatturd, but that's life I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A refrain I keep hearing.

Yet almost no-one seems to be suggesting what appears to be the obvious - a windfall tax retrospectively applied to all profits from property sales over the last 5 years.

Seems reasonable - those that benefitted the most would be paying the most.

And what will you be suggesting when property values fall, as they will.

Values in my area are back to approx Dec 2004 figures.

So, tax any increase in values, plus EA and legal fees, plus the vat, when you sell :D:D

Then pay stamp duty if you wish to buy again. :angry:

I think you have the perfect recipe to deter anyone from buying property :P

You sure have a big chip on your shoulders.

Oh, my rewards from 30odd years of UK property ownership were moved to Euro's when we sold up, so you want some of them?

and what am I supposed to pay the rent with? you muppet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not so much about raising additional tax it is reducing the dependency of those that claim on the state...

This is becoming yet another elephant in the room and will be one that will at one point need to be tackled.

Indeed. The problem is that the banksters (and all the spongers living off them) are now dependent upon the state to the tune of over £1trillion. It's not going to be an easy task weaning them off that dependency notwithstanding their hugely increased margins and cheap money subsidy via deeply negative real rates.

Bob Diamond would prefer it if everyone else paid to keep him in the lifestyle he's become rather accustomed and since Osborne and Dave do what they're told that's what happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the main problem about the taxing those that earn more is this:

60% of the workforce is employed by small and medium sized businesses.

the average small business employs 4.5 people. 95% of small businesses empoy less than 5 people.

estimated 60-80% of jobs growth comes from small businesses.

people naturally equate higher earners with corporates and executive of large companies but thats not true.

a lot of higher earners are small business owners and employees of small businesses.

500,000 new businesses are setup every year.

stifling this sector will also stifle the economy. if theyre the ones driving the economy, its wrong to assume taxing them more is "fairer", because it can have a negative impact on the overall economy if you over-tax the wrong areas.

This is an absurd argument. In the past decade 40% of all income growth went to the top 10% of earners. Now that the shit has hit the fan asking them to return their fictious gains which never really existed, will significantly harm the economy?? As with all VI's that are solely out for themselves and come up with why they are different and should be exempt - ignore what they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about all the people that MEW'ed and benefited but are still in their house, over-stretched and are still benefiting from 0.5% interest rates ?

Will you tax them on the made up mew money ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they benefitted, yes of course, a windfall tax is clearly appropriate, perhaps 20% or so of all housing gains over the captial gains threshold aggregated over the period the property was held.

Sure I'd lose a small % of my str fund, but I reckon that is only fair, after all I benefitted from it. Not as much as I might have benefitted if it (hpi) _hadn't_ been allowed to get so badly out of hand by that fatturd, but that's life I guess.

In any business cost's are allowed to be off set against tax.

Take the average buyer who bought 10 years ago and then STR'd at or near the top . Take off the buying , selling expenses , adjust for inflation , and then deduct the Capital Gains Allowance in most cases after all the admin invloved with people disputing their tax bill I dought much would be raised. However it would involve a great deal of grief.

If someone has bought another house and ploughed all their gains into that new property how are they going to pay a new tax bill with no ready cash ?

It would be as bad as raising income tax and NI and backdating those new rates for the last five years , people being expected to pay income tax and NI on money spent years ago . Not a good idear at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely (corrected 4 U) those with buy to let empires of 20 properties plus should contribute?

:P:P:P:P:P

Don't you think they might have enough problems already?

Crikey, a BTL empire must be close to financial suicide at this time.

Times are so bad for BTL that Georgie boy is helping them with tax advantages, according to his budget, I understood. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the concept of those who benefited most needs to be a worked out as a ratio against their contribution.

So suppose I have benefited in HPI by £400k over the last 10 years and have paid £400k tax, the my ratio is 1.

Meanwhile some chav on benefits has benefited to the tune of their benefits value and has paid zero tax, therefore their ratio is infinity.

Therefore all chavs should be infinity taxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the concept of those who benefited most needs to be a worked out as a ratio against their contribution.

So suppose I have benefited in HPI by £400k over the last 10 years and have paid £400k tax, the my ratio is 1.

Meanwhile some chav on benefits has benefited to the tune of their benefits value and has paid zero tax, therefore their ratio is infinity.

Therefore all chavs should be infinity taxed.

Here Here.

I pay a fortune in tax and get no benefits.

Make the people on benefits earn their living. Pay them in food/clothing/shelter and stop taxing me to give them a decent life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any business cost's are allowed to be off set against tax.

Take the average buyer who bought 10 years ago and then STR'd at or near the top . Take off the buying , selling expenses , adjust for inflation , and then deduct the Capital Gains Allowance in most cases after all the admin invloved with people disputing their tax bill I dought much would be raised. However it would involve a great deal of grief.

If someone has bought another house and ploughed all their gains into that new property how are they going to pay a new tax bill with no ready cash ?

It would be as bad as raising income tax and NI and backdating those new rates for the last five years , people being expected to pay income tax and NI on money spent years ago . Not a good idear at all.

If they are a business or self employed, then it seems reasonable to offset against expenses. Otherwise not really. As for how you pay, well, how would a business that ploughed a windfall tax susceptible sum of cash into furthering their business be treated?

Bankers and Oil industry get nailed with windfall taxes - why shouldn't property sellers/mewers?

Lots of posters here suggesting that it's an outrageous idea that those that benefitted should contribute. How odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the main problem about the taxing those that earn more is this:

60% of the workforce is employed by small and medium sized businesses.

the average small business employs 4.5 people. 95% of small businesses empoy less than 5 people.

estimated 60-80% of jobs growth comes from small businesses.

people naturally equate higher earners with corporates and executive of large companies but thats not true.

a lot of higher earners are small business owners and employees of small businesses.

500,000 new businesses are setup every year.

stifling this sector will also stifle the economy. if theyre the ones driving the economy, its wrong to assume taxing them more is "fairer", because it can have a negative impact on the overall economy if you over-tax the wrong areas.

Which is why the burden of tax should fall on land values rather than income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A refrain I keep hearing.

Yet almost no-one seems to be suggesting what appears to be the obvious - a windfall tax retrospectively applied to all profits from property sales over the last 5 years.

Seems reasonable - those that benefitted the most would be paying the most.

I bought March 1998 and sold it Oct 2007 - so can you make it the last 3 years instead of 5? Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.