Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

‘Humanitarian’ Campaign Launched To Stop Labour’S Mansion Tax

Recommended Posts

Equity withdrawal loan could free up enough capital to make life easy for these people, we are talking 2 million pounds plus after all. Meanwhile those with nothing are expected to keep these folk in pension and health security, or at least future generations will, when we finally stop adding to the public debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article;

Art dealer James Butterwick, who lives in Hammersmith and is backing the campaign, said the proposed tax would force him to sell his home and business.

“I have a gallery in my house and in order to survive I’d have to close my gallery,” he said.

“For me it would mean the closing of my business, the selling of my house and a complete upheaval of everything that I hold dear.

“The person I’m most concerned about is my mother who lives in a house which is probably worth £4m, which my father bought in 1960. She would have to move and at the age of 77 it would be extremely traumatic for her.”

Almost sounds like a parody. Also, she doesn't need to sell her house, surely he has heard of equity release?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

retired...hundreds...hampstead and highgate...Lord...East Finchley...art dealer...probably worth £4m...move...traumatic...

Classic.

Man and woman child's inheritance is sacrosanct...so the plebs have to keep these millionaires in retirement and health welfare so Rupert and Amelia can bag the lot in ten or twenty years time. What other reasoning is there for multi millionaires to jealously guard their equity.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

retired...hundreds...hampstead and highgate...Lord...East Finchley...art dealer...probably worth £4m...move...traumatic...

Classic.

....the weird thing about it is, normal people not that many years ago were not rich people that lived in areas like that......they got rich from what was once was very little or nothing.....right place right time......one day it will be wrong place wrong time. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man and woman child's inheritance is sacrosanct...so the plebs have to keep these millionaires in retirement and health welfare so Rupert and Amelia can bag the lot in ten or twenty years time. What other reasoning is there for multi millionaires to jealously guard their equity.

Because they can. I guess real problems just don't have the same sympathetic draw.

working...millions...Harlow...pleb...East Ham...car dealer...probably won't ever earn £40k...stagnation...traumatic...zzzzz

....the weird thing about it is, normal people not that many years ago were not rich people that lived in areas like that......they got rich from what was once was very little or nothing.....right place right time......one day it will be wrong place wrong time. ;)

Yeah rent seeking, intended or otherwise. One day, but I'm not very optimistic today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest how will this tax work? I assume that many pensioners will be exempt? It's just that I know someone who's retired who lives on a former farm worth over 1 million pounds and his only income is the state pension and a couple of rooms he rents out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest how will this tax work? I assume that many pensioners will be exempt? It's just that I know someone who's retired who lives on a former farm worth over 1 million pounds and his only income is the state pension and a couple of rooms he rents out.

Apparently 1% over £2million so probably a couple of thousand pounds extra a year if that. Looks like Labour is already watering it down http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-calm-mansion-tax-tensions-4445228. The power of the lovey and their righteous anger. I wonder what it feels like to be a champagne socialist Labour voter knowing that when push comes to shove you have to vote Tory and sacrifice your lefty principles in order to keep all that unearned wealth. Some Freudian analysis may be called for to deal with the trauma...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the campaign attracts enough support, there are plans to submit an official petition to Labour opposing the plans and campaigners are not ruling out a protest march.

Labour leader Ed Miliband announced the mansion tax proposals at his party’s annual conference last month and it has been suggested the average levy could be £12,000 annually, based on estimates that about 100,000 homes nationally will be affected.

Not much support there out of 25 million homes, especially if it saves the rest of the 25 million some tax money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be beyond them to come up with a scheme that takes into account people like James Butterwick's mother (if it's absolutely necessary to do so rather than using say MEW or selling up).

Most people in that asset rich/cash poor position will have provided their financial details to allow them to get some sort of tax credit so even a means test wouldn't be necessary for those people to decide if they should pay the mansion tax - they've already been means tested. If another means test is necessary then what's the difference.

For the other asset rich/cash poor ones then they should pay the tax upfront by instalments (temporary MEW if necessary) and apply for a refund if they're so poor giving whatever financial details necessary. That's effectively no different from what happens already with the various types of tax credit.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equity withdrawal loan could free up enough capital to make life easy for these people, we are talking 2 million pounds plus after all. Meanwhile those with nothing are expected to keep these folk in pension and health security, or at least future generations will, when we finally stop adding to the public debt.

You could tax all these people with expensive houses 10% of the value each year and it will still not make much difference to the national debt. Many of these "rich" people will have made already paid huge amounts of tax anyway. They are hardly being supported by those with nothing. Like all taxes, this is soon realised by politicians so they then start including those with ever cheaper homes. Stamp duty was once a tax only levied on the purchase of mansions. Governments could not resist dragging ever more people in to raise the huge sums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most residential property is already subject to a wealth tax. It is only mansions that are taxed no more once the value hits Band H. The huge variations between different councils means the wealthiest often pay the least. Band H in Westminster pays the same as Band D in Ealing or Band C in Bristol, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If necessary those liable could pay all dues (on their Mansions) for life in one discounted lump sum to help with budgeting. Say a lifetime Mansion Tax lump sum with say a graduated discount depending on their age. If they move house they could apply for a refund on completion although it would likely be refunded automatically like under the current system.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remind me, what law is it that stops tenants being evicted when rents are raised?

That happens every day. Only tenants don't make hundreds of thousands of pounds in profit from their eviction.

Presumably then, tenants are somehow to blame for the rising cost of housing?

Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, and this isn't a good argument for taxing land.

It does show the amazing bias that exists in the media, and forms the basic assumptions of our politics.

You could tax all these people with expensive houses 10% of the value each year and it will still not make much difference to the national debt. Many of these "rich" people will have made already paid huge amounts of tax anyway. They are hardly being supported by those with nothing. Like all taxes, this is soon realised by politicians so they then start including those with ever cheaper homes. Stamp duty was once a tax only levied on the purchase of mansions. Governments could not resist dragging ever more people in to raise the huge sums.

The reason we should tax land is exactly because people who have exclusive use of expensive land do place massive costs on the rest of us. Costs, in many cases, far in excess of any tax they will have paid during their lifetimes.

If your house has increased in value by £1M, then you really are being provided with an extra £1M pounds worth of a service, and the rest of us really are paying an extra £1M as a result. Not directly - we pay through the extra time we spend commuting, the extra cost of goods in the shops, the extra costs of parking, and so on.

Of course, it is terrible when anyone gets evicted, and we ought to aim for a world where that never happens to anyone. The reason that this is an issue at all is simply because the economic cost to society of each house is so ridiculously high. This is partly due to government rationing of land, but it is also due to the ability of some people to have all of us bear the cost of the land they use. If someone else got fat when you overate, we'd all have heart disease in our thirties.

In a rational world, people who used land would pay people who provide land - us - and the cost would be small enough that it would not be an issue. In the meantime, I don't see why one group of special flowers should be protected from something the rest of us have to live with on a daily basis. It might make a few more people realise how evil landlordism really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remind me, what law is it that stops tenants being evicted when rents are raised?

That happens every day. Only tenants don't make hundreds of thousands of pounds in profit from their eviction.

Presumably then, tenants are somehow to blame for the rising cost of housing?

Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, and this isn't a good argument for taxing land.

It does show the amazing bias that exists in the media, and forms the basic assumptions of our politics.

The reason we should tax land is exactly because people who have exclusive use of expensive land do place massive costs on the rest of us. Costs, in many cases, far in excess of any tax they will have paid during their lifetimes.

If your house has increased in value by £1M, then you really are being provided with an extra £1M pounds worth of a service, and the rest of us really are paying an extra £1M as a result. Not directly - we pay through the extra time we spend commuting, the extra cost of goods in the shops, the extra costs of parking, and so on.

Of course, it is terrible when anyone gets evicted, and we ought to aim for a world where that never happens to anyone. The reason that this is an issue at all is simply because the economic cost to society of each house is so ridiculously high. This is partly due to government rationing of land, but it is also due to the ability of some people to have all of us bear the cost of the land they use. If someone else got fat when you overate, we'd all have heart disease in our thirties.

In a rational world, people who used land would pay people who provide land - us - and the cost would be small enough that it would not be an issue. In the meantime, I don't see why one group of special flowers should be protected from something the rest of us have to live with on a daily basis. It might make a few more people realise how evil landlordism really is.

You can stay :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax is just based on the normal British jealousy of anyone doing well for themselves. Am surprised at the support for it round here, I thought the erstwhile members of this site would have a more common sense and free market belief.

Also, whether you agree or not with it, I think the important thing is NEVER LET POLITICIANS GET ANOTHER TAX...it will only expand (how's Gordon Brown's "green" Air Passenger Duty of £10 a flight looking now? Up about 15x I think)

This "mansion tax" will be here to stay, give it 20yrs time it will firmly be hitting the middle class. Just look at the US property tax system...we pay about 10x less than them with council tax...we're onto a good thing, let's keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax is just based on the normal British jealousy of anyone doing well for themselves. Am surprised at the support for it round here, I thought the erstwhile members of this site would have a more common sense and free market belief.

Also, whether you agree or not with it, I think the important thing is NEVER LET POLITICIANS GET ANOTHER TAX...it will only expand (how's Gordon Brown's "green" Air Passenger Duty of £10 a flight looking now? Up about 15x I think)

This "mansion tax" will be here to stay, give it 20yrs time it will firmly be hitting the middle class. Just look at the US property tax system...we pay about 10x less than them with council tax...we're onto a good thing, let's keep it that way.

As soon as someone mentions jealousy you know they're full of sh..

All its doing is changing the council tax bands, and its not called the "mansion tax" in the same way its not called the "bedroom tax".

They have such taxes in New York for property above 1 million USD was it brought in there due to jealousy?

Edited by Corruption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.