Tax reform?

[Murdochcat]

How do you work out the increase in value?

Our current home was bought as "uninhabitable" - we then stripped it back to the structure and did a 100% refurbishment, including full new plumbing, rewire, new bathrooms and new kitchen plus of course finishing it internally

Later we added an large extension

I'm not 100% sure how much we spent as it was 11 and 8 years ago

So how do the muppets think they can tax this?

AND in a couple of years we plan to downsize and relocate ......... if punitive taxes are imposed, we may as well stay put meaning a decent family home in a reasonable area will not be available for a growing family

 

[Brigadier]

How do you work out the increase in value?

Our current home was bought as "uninhabitable" - we then stripped it back to the structure and did a 100% refurbishment, including full new plumbing, rewire, new bathrooms and new kitchen plus of course finishing it internally

Later we added an large extension

I'm not 100% sure how much we spent as it was 11 and 8 years ago

It would need a lot of careful consideration, I agree.

So how do the muppets think they can tax this?

See above.

a decent family home in a reasonable area will not be available for a growing family

For many, it is already unavailable through being beyond their means.

 

[MNW67]

There are so many misconceptions and assumptions here i don't know where to start.

Lets just say for example someone has worked hard all their life, and now have little to no pension at retirement. You think it's ok for the government as a reward for their lifelong dediction to not taking that holiday to not drink/smoke have those kids, work through their holiday enititement, not claim redundancy benefits when maybe out of work etc. Those people. You think they're fair game to have that 'wealth' ie money they've already been taxed on, now taken away from them for just being sensible and making good choices, possibly big sacrifices to not be a burden on society and more so, able to control their retirement with their own hard earned pot, their house to which they may sell, scale down and drawn some of that money for retirement?

If you think that's ok, we are worlds apart. I do not resent anyone being wealthy, apart from of course the gangsters and tyrants of this world. The rest arguably most have accumulated wealth by hard work and elements of sacrifice i mentioned above. No such thing as easy money in this world. Why should they give it up.

Remember also that top bracket you mention contribute most to the economy, without them, we are all screwed.

It's like being taxed on capital gains or passive income. You have invariably invested taxed earnings as opposed to spaffing it up the wall, and your reward is you have to give more of the money you already paid tax on to be retaxed again and given to people who invariably don't give a sh't and have just thrown in the towel to a benefit life. Its absurd.

For example, in my spare time i run something about giving back to the community, i wont give too much detail, but i do, i don't benefit hell it costs me but i do it. Arguably i should be given tax relief for being such a good citizen, imagine that, asking the taxman, for such a thing, he likely imply i was using it to avoid tax in some way, we are never given a break to just breathe, just a small break where you can earn your own money without having to give a large portion away. Yes thats right earn even more and you lose your allowance completely, how and who ever made up that rule? WHo approved it? I would guess somebody so 'rich' that would never affect them, they don't care.

It is still quite simple to me.

We need more tax revenue to pay for the things that voters want.

Wealth and income are becoming ever more concentrated at the top.

It is therefore only logical that those at the top should be asked to put in more than they currently do. Because they are the ones with the all the money in the first place.

 

[festive]

How do you work out the increase in value?

Our current home was bought as "uninhabitable" - we then stripped it back to the structure and did a 100% refurbishment, including full new plumbing, rewire, new bathrooms and new kitchen plus of course finishing it internally

Later we added an large extension

I'm not 100% sure how much we spent as it was 11 and 8 years ago

So how do the muppets think they can tax this?

AND in a couple of years we plan to downsize and relocate ......... if punitive taxes are imposed, we may as well stay put meaning a decent family home in a reasonable area will not be available for a growing family

Now you're seen as RICH because you devoted finite life time to making it increase in value, sacrifice, hard work, dedication etc etc.

So now because you have more money than the have nots you deserve to have it taken off you and given to them.

What a fcked up world we live in.

 

[Notch7]

I personally believe this country needs a mass council house building programme.

It is crazy that councils flogged 1.5 million houses in early 1980s……and now housing benefit is a massive £24b

If councils had kept their properties they would now have valuable assets which even at council rental rates would bring in a great income

 

[Murdochcat]

Isn’t hindsight wonderful

 

[motorbiking]

It is still quite simple to me.

We need more tax revenue to pay for the things that voters want.

Wealth and income are becoming ever more concentrated at the top.

It is therefore only logical that those at the top should be asked to put in more than they currently do. Because they are the ones with the all the money in the first place.

There’s nothing logical about that.

 

[JohnD]

Wealth in many cases is the product of income.'

More often than not it is inherited.

In the case of some oligarchs it is stolen.

In the case of some bankers it is skimmed off the proceeds of crime. For example Malaysia.

How many hours of work do you think the Duke of Westminster put in to gain his enormous riches?

 

[JohnD]

It seems Labour wants to tax its way to filling the fiscal black hole rather than growing the economy.

"Growing the economy" is a very effective way of making the rich, richer.

It is not an effective way of reducing the National Debt by making tax revenues larger than the cost of public services.

If you need, and want, to increase the tax take, do you think it is logical to try to squeeze money out of people who haven't got any?

Or out of people who have?

 

[JohnD]

People need growth in their homes as pensions and care home funds.

Sounds like the opinion of a prosperous older person who owns some houses.

It would not convince younger people who see no prospect of ever being able to buy themselves a home

Although, curiously, their rent enables somebody else to buy one.

Something wrong there.

 

[JohnD]

It is therefore only logical that those at the top should be asked to put in more than they currently do. Because they are the ones with the all the money in the first place.

Bikerboy thinks it is not logical for the people who have the most money to pay. He pretends, but doesn’t, really, believe, it is logical to expect people who haven't got any money to do it.

 

[motorbiking]

So the thread title is really, how can we make people who earn more than us, pay more taxes to fund the things we don't want to pay for.

I prefer to relook at what we intend to spend the money on and address the issue of people who do not reach their earning potential. Just the other day we had a Builder discussing his income of around £60k working 3 short days a week. With a tax contribution of less than 12k. If he could be encouraged to work full time, his contribution would almost triple. There are many more of him than their are of those in the 0.5% income bracket.

Of course it's easy to pretend the country can lock in the top 0,1% of earners and squeeze them harder. The reality is you can't, they are highly mobile and it ends up being the top 10% who pay. Those who already pay 68% of the income tax.

 

[Odds]

Now you're seen as RICH because you devoted finite life time to making it increase in value, sacrifice, hard work, dedication etc etc.

So now because you have more money than the have nots you deserve to have it taken off you and given to them.

Or; you give a small percentage of your wealth back to the community to help those less fortunate than yourself - those who cannot help themselves as you have helped yourself to such riches that you cannot easily spend in a lifetime. You can't take it with you, after all. The Common Wealth of this country is just that. A Common Wealth, where people are afforded the opportunity to make the most of their talent and can find altruism in their heart for those who did not have the same opportunities.

What a fcked up world we live in.

This is the world you helped to create.

 

[motorbiking]

Or; you give a small percentage of your wealth back to the community to help those less fortunate than yourself - those who cannot help themselves as you have helped yourself to such riches that you cannot easily spend in a lifetime. You can't take it with you, after all. The Common Wealth of this country is just that. A Common Wealth, where people are afforded the opportunity to make the most of their talent and can find altruism in their heart for those who did not have the same opportunities.


This is the world you helped to create.

44% of your earnings is not a small percentage.

 

[Mottie]

People need growth in their homes as pensions and care home funds. Taxing these in new "innovative" ways will drive profits for Equity Release firms and increase the tax burden on future tax payers.

Mrs Motties mum who has dementia, is paying £6240 a month to live in a care home, nearly £75k a year. I e got no problem with that but some of the residents in the same home are being fully funded by the local authority. With state and private pensions mrs Motties mum is on over £35k a year so will have to pay tax on that. I really think that those that can afford self-funding and living in a care home as a necessity, should be allowed some tax relief against the fees they are paying.