ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
You have to be trolling surely.
Whitby - Being Destroyed by 2nd Home Owners
- Thread starter Abel Tasman
- Start date
Same_as_before
Well-known member
Why? Because I think inflation is unearned income? You are passing your cash to at best late mid age.
I fully accept it will never be a vote winner, we are all too greedy.
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
Because I said tax money going to a spouse, tax everything at 80% and increase income tax and ni at the same time and you said you agree with most of that?!
it will never be a winner but nothing to do with greed - it’s to do with people not wanting to work all their lives only to donate everything to the government. You might be happy to do that for some reason, in which case suggest you write them into your will?
Same_as_before
Well-known member
Why not have no tax then you can keep it all. Why not hide your cash in Jersey, or maybe you do.
It's true there is a value where people think tax is unfair, I think it's about 45% on earned income.
Ok I back down, put vat on houses over £250,000 at 10% and 50% on second homes. Then tax inheritance at 50%
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
Or just leave it as it is, and tax those much more wealthy rather than hammering working and middle class families, i.e the north.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
I am hammering the dead. Getting left £100's of thousands for doing nothing is wrong, if it's
£500 k or £500 million.
And then put a vat charge of 50% on school fees and end charitable status.
What's the North got to do with it?
Same_as_before
Well-known member
Here is another idea, any house owned over 25 miles from your place of abode is taxed at 100%, give the locals a chance.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
Middle class north my @rse. They're working class families with mortgages and cars on lease.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
It's my mam and dad's and I want it, f the social services, health, education, defense the poor, f the lot of them I want dad's money for me.
r00fie1
Well-known member
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
It's how the scoundrels who are raping the country get away with it. They haven't worked hard, the vast majority have either inherited their wealth or ripped people off.
Like you, I'd have a high rate of taxation for inherited wealth over a fairly low threshold.
Someone can only buy a second home if an owner is willing to sell to them.
These owners who sell their homes at hugely inflated prices must be part of the problem also. They are responsible for destroying their own towns as much as the buyers.
Where do these people move to? Into the country and inflate the prices there? It's a vicious circle.
These owners who sell their homes at hugely inflated prices must be part of the problem also. They are responsible for destroying their own towns as much as the buyers.
Where do these people move to? Into the country and inflate the prices there? It's a vicious circle.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
No, the prices in the country are sky high. They move into towns where housing is cheaper. Whitby youngsters will move up to Loftus, Redcar, Boro etc.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
I always get the impression that those who want cash for nothing are the same who moan about not getting a doctor's appointment, police not coming out when they hear kids playing Kerby out the front, call poor people scum.
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
What has the government done to earn that money? They have assumed no risk, what gives them entitlement to half of it over my kids?
You're talking 500k now which is well above the realms of what we are discussing and even the current laws, without playing the extra allowances.
High taxes on inherited wealth on working and middle class families will just lead to people keeping money in mattresses rather than giving government half for nothing. Won't impact the wealthy as they have enough not to feel it, but makes it harder for people lower down the rung to get their foot off the bottom of the ladder.
No issues with charitable status for schools or additional vat because they aren't issues that face the working or lower class very often and raises money from those that can afford it the most.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
The Government is me and you, it pays for your kids health and education.
Lower or lower middle class families would be below the £350,000 threshold.
Stop talking bull, you don't want to contribute.
Lower or lower middle class families would be below the £350,000 threshold.
Stop talking bull, you don't want to contribute.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
The government is us. We are what the public purse should be spent on, so yes, I'd like to see the wealth gained from us and earned by us as workers be put back into the government coffers (not all of it, there would be a threshold) and spent on us as a nation.
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
But that's my point, you aren't talking about the 350k threshold whereas I am. I said the current threshold is fair at 350k as that is essentially a standard 4 bed house value in the suburbs, but you said make it 250k and tax 60% above that. Average Uk house price is now £270k so you want to tax the average person in the Uk and not the wealthy; who can actually afford it.
That is what income tax, council tax, VAT, national insurance, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, insurance premium tax, and the many other taxes and duties we already pay are designed to pay for.
I'd rather see the wealth gained by workers stay with the workers, and money be raised via owners of companies generating vastly huge sums, hence feel the current threshold is set fairly, although the extra allowances I'd have no issue being removed as, again, unlikely to impact those that can afford it the least.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
£250,000 is more than enough to be given, you have done nothing for that money, nothing.
You are giving it to 60yo people who don't need it.
I still think the rate should be 60% above that.
Until there is a worldwide rate of Corporation Tax you can forget big companies paying their fair share.
You are giving it to 60yo people who don't need it.
I still think the rate should be 60% above that.
Until there is a worldwide rate of Corporation Tax you can forget big companies paying their fair share.