Does anyone agree with taking money off the poor to give to the rich?

[Titanic99 10]

Nice choice of words: "let's see if we can take some of it".

 

Think real terms though. There are plenty of families on moderate or low incomes in relatively exensive properties, especially in the South East.

 

So, imagine somebody living in a modest semi in Ealing, husband and wife shop workers, in a house the family has lived in since the war when their parents had it. Due to property inflation its paper value (meaningless to the people who just want to continue living in it) had gone up from £250k in 2000 to £500k in 2012.

 

They don't have £25k to pay the envy tax, unless they sell the house. Is that fair?

 

Thank you for acknowledging the increase in the wealth of a lot of people under Labour, perhaps now you will join me in trying to point out to people that when banging on about the debt the country has that we also have a lot of assets to counter the debt.

 

With regards to the family in Ealing, there are plenty of Equity Release schemes that would cover the cost of their taxation from this unearned wealth.

 

The attached link explains it.

https://www.agepartnership.co.uk/equity-release/types-of-equity-release-schemes/

[Titanic99 10]

House price inflation didn't benefit anyone and in reality it didn't increase anyones wealth.

If someone owned 1 house in 1995 and they still own 1 house now, then they are no more or less wealthy than they were, unless you're suggesting that they can live in 0 houses and realise the change in the value?

 

Kindly explain to me how I haven't benefitted from this (financially) following my recent inheritance greatly inflated by the rise in property values.

[Titanic99 10]

When the value of housing went up where were people to find money to pay this tax? They weren't earning extra money, indeed they could even have been the precious poor people who you don't think should pay for anything, so all this policy would do would be to cause people to loose their homes due to an unasked for housing price boom that labour encouraged.

Inheritance tax already exists.

Equity release? So you're going to force people to mortgage their home to pay a tax on an unasked for increase in value.

Not necessarily they could choose to defer repayment of it until after their death.

[Titanic99 10]

If somebody buys you a pint, should you pay tax on it? After all, you didn't earn it.

 

Inheritances have already been taxed; the person who died and left the inheritance paid tax on it when it was earned. Inheritance tax is entirely unfair because it is taxing the same income twice - it's driven by pure undiluted politics of envy. There should be no inheritance tax.

 

Opinions eh, some of us believe in people achieving things in life on merit and others believe it should depend on the family you are born into.

 

Just stop lecturing us on people get what they deserve through hard work when this is quite clearly not what you think.

[L00b 441]

By the way I wouldn't mind some of this "paper gain" you refer to coming my way if you don't want your share.

Are you being deliberately obtuse about this?

 

I doubt you are (you appear smart enough, from your posts), but I feel compelled to ask.

 

Here, for the hard of reading/understanding:

 

Unless you sell a property (which has appreciated in value), there is never any profit, regardless of how much that property has appreciated in value since whenever.

 

For you to make a profit on something, someone has to pay you an amount including that profit for the something.

 

No selling = no money changing hands = no value (including profit) received by any party at all = nothing to calculate and pay CGT on

Edited October 13, 2012 by L00b

[Titanic99 10]

Well that's pretty easy.

 

First you neglected to tell us how you were going to tax Lewis Hamilton who was reported this week to be earning £20 million/year on his new contract.

 

Then you failed to say how you would tax folk on this notional increase in the value of their property.

 

Lets take an example.

 

A guy puts down a deposit on his first house in 1980 for £50K. He lives there for 5 years paying a mortgage at an inflated rate of interest. He then gets divorced and moves to another house that he buys for £80K taking out a 100% mortgage. He remarries and they move house a few more times and now he lives in a £200K house on which he owes £180K.

 

How much tax is he required to pay?

 

Then we can get onto the guy who buys a derelict barn and rebuilds it.

 

Your original question was about the assets I'd tax, I answered that but for some reason you've chosen to ignore my response.

 

With regards to the specifics of Mr Hamilton, without details of his income how can you expect anyone to comment on that?

[Anna Glypta 10]

Your original question was about the assets I'd tax, I answered that but for some reason you've chosen to ignore my response.

 

With regards to the specifics of Mr Hamilton, without details of his income how can you expect anyone to comment on that?

 

Like I said you just don't have a clue. I asked about what you would tax. I then asked the obvious question of how you would go about it.

 

Hamilton's income will be £20 million next year. He will earn that by driving racing cars at Grand Prix races. There's not too much mystery about it other than how you would go about taxing that £20 million. If that's too difficult for you how about taxing Britain's wealthiest man Lakshmi Mittal. He owns steel works all around the world. He even contributes to the Labour Party but not so much to the UK tax system.

 

But you didn't even bother to tell us how much tax you would take off the home owner that I quoted. I'm pretty clear that's because you haven't got the slightest idea.

[maxmaximus 10]

You do know there are far more benefit claimants who work than don't right??

 

It's just the government that want you to think benefit claimants are scum!

 

Sorry I should have said the unemployed need some encouragement to get a job, and yes I’m fully aware that millions of working people claim some benefits. Some quite well off people have been claiming working tax credits and child tax credits, clearly money some of them didn’t need and I don’t have a problem with it being cut.

[Titanic99 10]

Like I said you just don't have a clue. I asked about what you would tax. I then asked the obvious question of how you would go about it.

 

Hamilton's income will be £20 million next year. He will earn that by driving racing cars at Grand Prix races. There's not too much mystery about it other than how you would go about taxing that £20 million. If that's too difficult for you how about taxing Britain's wealthiest man Lakshmi Mittal. He owns steel works all around the world. He even contributes to the Labour Party but not so much to the UK tax system.

 

But you didn't even bother to tell us how much tax you would take off the home owner that I quoted. I'm pretty clear that's because you haven't got the slightest idea.

 

I refer you to your original question:

 

Which assets would you sell off-Answered

Which assets would you tax-Answered

How much Tax would you take off Lewis Hamilton- Unanswered as contrary to what you think, I don't believe his sole income is derived from driving around a race track, I suspect he has many endorsements and investments that tax will be due on. In order to avoid being accused of avoiding the question, if his income was £20 million from driving alone my answer would be that in a sensible world he wouldn't be getting paid that much, however we don't live in that world so I would be requesting a taxation rate of around 80% for him irrespective of the country he lives in.

[Titanic99 10]

Are you being deliberately obtuse about this?

 

I doubt you are (you appear smart enough, from your posts), but I feel compelled to ask.

 

Here, for the hard of reading/understanding:

 

Unless you sell a property (which has appreciated in value), there is never any profit, regardless of how much that property has appreciated in value since whenever.

 

For you to make a profit on something, someone has to pay you an amount including that profit for the something.

 

No selling = no money changing hands = no value (including profit) received by any party at all = nothing to calculate and pay CGT on

 

There isn't and you are correct that the value can go down when there is less demand for a property.

 

However, there is when inheritance is due and the rates for this are low and these people will certainly benefit (financially) from increased property values.

 

Regarding the group who have seen it increase but not benfitted yet, then surely a simple answer is to defer the tax until death or sale.

[Titanic99 10]

Sorry I should have said the unemployed need some encouragement to get a job, and yes I’m fully aware that millions of working people claim some benefits. Some quite well off people have been claiming working tax credits and child tax credits, clearly money some of them didn’t need and I don’t have a problem with it being cut.

 

So do you now concede the Government is wrong to cut the Benefit for those people working on a low wage and having to claim benefit and that it might have been better not to reduce tax rate for the well-off to pay for this?

[maxmaximus 10]

So do you now concede the Government is wrong to cut the Benefit for those people working on a low wage and having to claim benefit and that it might have been better not to reduce tax rate for the well-off to pay for this?

 

What benefits are the government cutting that are paid to people on low wages?

I know the government just increased that tax allowance which makes the low paid better off, so it’s hardly a government that is taking from the low paid and giving it to the wealthy.