Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Bear Goggles

More Mansion Tax Ranting

Recommended Posts

Nigel Wilson says plan for levy on £2m homes is 'poor economics' that will reduce supply of property

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11191479/Labours-mansion-tax-will-create-housing-shortage-for-young-says-Legal-and-General-boss.html

They don't like it up 'em.

There are so many vested interest opinions stated as truths in that article it's unbelievable, but my favourite quote is this.

It is “unjust” to those whose property values have increased seven-fold in under 20 years, he added.

It's strange when money obtained by sitting on your backside and adding no value the economy for 20 years is described as being 'justice'. Kinda sums up what's wrong with our economy, don't you think?

The rant drones on and finishes with an unrelated couple of paragraphs about UKIP's chances in the Rochester and Stood by-election.

I'm sure the average Ukipper is really sympathetic of the Kensington and Chelsea elite and the injustice stalking their unearned property gains.

Edited by Bear Goggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal & General = VI

opinion = worthless (actually it's worse than worthless it's a contra-indicator - the tax clearly needs to be higher and wider)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are rattled by this then it's a probably a policy that benefits the common man.

Don't be hoodwinked into voting Labour on the strength of it though, they don't have a good track record of carrying through their election promises.

Same with all of LibLabCon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a blistering assessment of Labour’s flagship tax policy, Nigel Wilson, the chief executive of Legal & General, said the party was “pandering to the politics of envy” by promising to impose a levy on homes worth more than £2 million.

Legal & General pandering to the politics of wickedness and money printing.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't really know what the outcome might be but they're expressing their narrow VI slant and (always) being given news space in order to do so.

For instance some people could decide to sell and the 5 or 6 bedrooms etc (like the house at in the photo the top of the article) could be converted into flats.

Not ideal of course but a short term remedy providing more accommodation.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mansion tax would benefit the supply of housing, but crimp the generation of superhomes for the resident / non resident rich.

Builders would have to concentrate more on building and modernising homes rather than underground swimming pools and gyms on the 3 rd level down basement.

With a REALLY regressive taxation you would encourage the redevelopment into apartments and separated accommodation under the supertax threshold.

So no, completely specious argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal & General = VI

opinion = worthless (actually it's worse than worthless it's a contra-indicator - the tax clearly needs to be higher and wider)

I think it needs to be wider. IMO the tax should be applied to a portfolio, not individual properties e.g. a BTL landlord sitting on 10 properties 'worth' £3m would be subject to the mansion tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

taxing property that is valued above £2m is unlikely to lead to a drop in supply - I don't understand.

It's the drop in supply of properties onto the market.

The logic goes: Fewer people will move up to the top of the market, meaning people can't trade up from smaller homes and stay put, that will filter down the food chain to the FTBers who'll be excluded from the market forever.

I believe it's called the "wall of money" argument.

The notion that those owning £2m+ houses will either be rich enough to easily afford a couple of extra grand a year, or will sell at a reduced price that will itself filter down through the market, reducing house prices - are not considered.

Edited by Bear Goggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the drop in supply of properties onto the market.

The logic goes: Fewer people will move up to the top of the market, meaning people can't trade up from smaller homes and stay put, that will filter down the food chain to the FTBers who'll be excluded from the market forever.

I believe it's called the "wall of money" argument.

The notion that those owning £2m+ houses will either be rich enough to easily afford a couple of extra grand a year, or will sell at a reduced price that will itself filter down through the market, reducing house prices - are not considered.

and the fragmented justification then broadened out as typified by the misleading paragraph below from the article

“People who choose to prioritise buying a home have typically made sacrifices to do so: fewer foreign holidays, meals out or other luxuries. Through no fault of their own, their prudence would be punished by a Mansion Tax.”

Trying to pretending it's every home.

Edited by billybong

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 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.