Whitby - Being Destroyed by 2nd Home Owners

ThatFragranceGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

For me the current threshold could be lowered but the rate of taxation above it be raised dramatically.

As SAB states correctly, the vast majority of estates are being left to people approaching pension age, already having paid off their mortgages and largely debt free.

The extra taxation spent on putting back into the NI contributions pile what has wrongly been removed to make sure we're not the poorest paid pensioners in western Europe, despite our nation's considerable wealth.
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
My previous post covers this. £325k doesn't include property. Including property it is £500k, combined with a spouse it is £1m. That is way above average.

Like I've said previously, I would do away with the threshold being calculated against the estate altogether and charge the beneficiaries tax on what they receive. Give everyone a lifetime allowance of £50k tax free, anything you inherit above that you pay tax on. Progressive tax rates so something like 20% up to £100k, 40% up to £200k, 60% to £1m, 80% above £1m. If you leave a £200k house to 4 kids, or a £1m house to 20 grandkids then they won't pay tax. If someone else leaves them anything then they will begin to pay tax. Most importantly, close all of the loopholes so the rich can't avoid it.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Whitby youngsters move all over. And it isn't something new. I left in 1987 for Uni then permanently when Uni finished and almost nobody I went to school with is still there.

The fact is it isn't only housing costs driving that - its also the lack of decent jobs.

Its a big contrast to Tyneside where I moved to for work. There everyone seemed to have grown up together, went to school together and were still living in the same place and with the same friends. I was a bit jealous of them for that to be honest. My best friends are in Leeds, Sheffield, Utrecht, Bridlington, etc. I don't see them very often! When I go back to Whitby, I'm lucky if I run into one person I know.
 
UK Tax breakdown

I attach if anyone interested it shows the actual breakdown of which taxes generate most for the Treasury, who pays what and how that compares to other countries.

Direct Taxes (Income Tax, NIC, Council Tax) are already Progressive, in that the higher the income, the higher the marginal and overall rate of tax. (Substitute property value for income with Council Tax)
Obviously those who earn most pay the highest share of their income in Direct Taxes.
The top 1% of all earners, earn 12.5% of all income and pay 29.1% of all income tax.
You can play about with groups however you want.
The bottom 50% of all earners, earn 25.5% of all income and pay 9.4% of all income tax.
The top 20% of earners pay about 30% of their earnings in Direct Tax, the bottom 20% pay about 17.5%.

Indirect Taxes (VAT, Fuel Duty, Tobacco & Alcohol Duty) are Regressive, in that the higher the income (or wealth) the lower the overall rate of tax.
The top 20% of earners pay in c16% of what they spend on Indirect Taxes.
The bottom 20% spend 18% of what they spend on Indirect Taxes.
Those who earn least pay a much higher share of their Disposable income on these taxes.

Overall UK remains a low overall tax country. Most Western European countries see Tax being 5-10% more of GDP than we do in UK. That is an awful lot more money.

We have a low overall tax burden, with a progressive direct tax system and relatively low indirect tax burden and relatively high property tax burden.

The truth is that we can't afford the society we want, but are too selfish to pay more towards it.
I find the idea of regressive taxes such as Duties and VAT as morally repugnant.
I would much prefer Direct Taxes to be significantly more progressive AND there to be real taxation of obscene wealth with massive penalties for those who avoid let alone evade, and huge access problems to these shores for those that don't agree to contribute.
The difficult matter is HOW MUCH more progressive? How much higher should top rates be and from what Income Tax, NI, Property Value or Inheritance Tax rate?
IMHO we have to incentivise success, but also eliminate poverty and narrow the gap between the richest and poorest.
We are far too focussed on the former and are failing badly at the latter.

I am for:
Higher top rate income tax rate. I say this as some one who was snared by Brown's 50% rate as my earnings peaked!
Higher limit before any tax is paid. Take more people out of Income Tax who literally can't afford to pay it.
Reduce VAT. Have a higher rate on "luxury items".
Switch more to higher Inheritance Tax rates above reasonable limits.
Add VAT and increase Stamp duty to second homes and tighten legislation on occupancy. Make Council Tax extremely progressive on Second Homes. Increase Capital Gains Tax significantly on non first homes.
Re-structure Corporation Tax dramatically - though I accept without international cooperation this is difficult. It currently scandalously generates little over what we pay in tobacco, alcohol and fuel duties to the Treasury.

What I struggle with is why the above is so scary to the vast majority of the electorate who would benefit from it.
 
indeedido said:
UK Tax breakdown

I attach if anyone interested it shows the actual breakdown of which taxes generate most for the Treasury, who pays what and how that compares to other countries.

Direct Taxes (Income Tax, NIC, Council Tax) are already Progressive, in that the higher the income, the higher the marginal and overall rate of tax. (Substitute property value for income with Council Tax)
Obviously those who earn most pay the highest share of their income in Direct Taxes.
The top 1% of all earners, earn 12.5% of all income and pay 29.1% of all income tax.
You can play about with groups however you want.
The bottom 50% of all earners, earn 25.5% of all income and pay 9.4% of all income tax.
The top 20% of earners pay about 30% of their earnings in Direct Tax, the bottom 20% pay about 17.5%.

Indirect Taxes (VAT, Fuel Duty, Tobacco & Alcohol Duty) are Regressive, in that the higher the income (or wealth) the lower the overall rate of tax.
The top 20% of earners pay in c16% of what they spend on Indirect Taxes.
The bottom 20% spend 18% of what they spend on Indirect Taxes.
Those who earn least pay a much higher share of their Disposable income on these taxes.

Overall UK remains a low overall tax country. Most Western European countries see Tax being 5-10% more of GDP than we do in UK. That is an awful lot more money.

We have a low overall tax burden, with a progressive direct tax system and relatively low indirect tax burden and relatively high property tax burden.

The truth is that we can't afford the society we want, but are too selfish to pay more towards it.
I find the idea of regressive taxes such as Duties and VAT as morally repugnant.
I would much prefer Direct Taxes to be significantly more progressive AND there to be real taxation of obscene wealth with massive penalties for those who avoid let alone evade, and huge access problems to these shores for those that don't agree to contribute.
The difficult matter is HOW MUCH more progressive? How much higher should top rates be and from what Income Tax, NI, Property Value or Inheritance Tax rate?
IMHO we have to incentivise success, but also eliminate poverty and narrow the gap between the richest and poorest.
We are far too focussed on the former and are failing badly at the latter.

I am for:
Higher top rate income tax rate. I say this as some one who was snared by Brown's 50% rate as my earnings peaked!
Higher limit before any tax is paid. Take more people out of Income Tax who literally can't afford to pay it.
Reduce VAT. Have a higher rate on "luxury items".
Switch more to higher Inheritance Tax rates above reasonable limits.
Add VAT and increase Stamp duty to second homes and tighten legislation on occupancy. Make Council Tax extremely progressive on Second Homes. Increase Capital Gains Tax significantly on non first homes.
Re-structure Corporation Tax dramatically - though I accept without international cooperation this is difficult. It currently scandalously generates little over what we pay in tobacco, alcohol and fuel duties to the Treasury.

What I struggle with is why the above is so scary to the vast majority of the electorate who would benefit from it.
Click to expand...
My views in a nutshell.

I keep saying the same thing, there is a limit to the highest band can be before significant evasion.
From UK House of Commons data

Individual taxpayers: income tax paid, by income

Income tax payments are concentrated amongst those with the largest incomes. The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts.

Non domicile is an issue, the rich love toys, if you are a non dom you cannot have any form of honour, you cannot use the UK Health Service, you cannot stay in the country more than 45 days.
 
Last edited:
indeedido said:
UK Tax breakdown

Direct Taxes (Income Tax, NIC, Council Tax) are already Progressive, in that the higher the income, the higher the marginal and overall rate of tax. (Substitute property value for income with Council Tax)
Obviously those who earn most pay the highest share of their income in Direct Taxes.
The top 1% of all earners, earn 12.5% of all income and pay 29.1% of all income tax.
You can play about with groups however you want.
The bottom 50% of all earners, earn 25.5% of all income and pay 9.4% of all income tax.
The top 20% of earners pay about 30% of their earnings in Direct Tax, the bottom 20% pay about 17.5%.
Click to expand...

The big problem with this is that it it is massively obfuscated by the complex tax arrangements, particularly of the wealthy but not only them. They don't take their salary as salary, it's stock options or some other dodge, contractors funnel it into Ltd Companies to pay themselves minimum wage and take it all as dividends or corporate tax which is lower, on the other end of the scale people are paid cash in hand and declare nothing. This is why it is so hard to make arguments using governmental data because they don't collect it all. Who knows how much is paid directly offshore or to fake non-doms like Mrs Sunak. The amount of different ways of legally not paying tax is just ridiculous. The worst thing is that the majority of us that are paid PAYE don't ever get the chance to get around the system. We're all being played.

I don't think the current rates of tax are particularly bad. I just think that too many people are able to avoid a huge chunk of them utilising the multitude of loopholes available. I don't particularly blame them, the system allows it. The blame lies solely with the people in charge of the system. Neither party have ever done anything to close the loopholes because it suits them. The best investment the government could make is in increasing numbers at HMRC. They literally pay for themselves. So much dodginess about and it never gets punished. Even when people are caught blatantly evading tax they get a telling off and the punishment is to pay their tax. There is almost no deterrent not to do it. The whole avoid/evade blurriness is a scam.
 
Nano said:
The big problem with this is that it it is massively obfuscated by the complex tax arrangements, particularly of the wealthy but not only them. They don't take their salary as salary, it's stock options or some other dodge, contractors funnel it into Ltd Companies to pay themselves minimum wage and take it all as dividends or corporate tax which is lower, on the other end of the scale people are paid cash in hand and declare nothing. This is why it is so hard to make arguments using governmental data because they don't collect it all. Who knows how much is paid directly offshore or to fake non-doms like Mrs Sunak. The amount of different ways of legally not paying tax is just ridiculous. The worst thing is that the majority of us that are paid PAYE don't ever get the chance to get around the system. We're all being played.

I don't think the current rates of tax are particularly bad. I just think that too many people are able to avoid a huge chunk of them utilising the multitude of loopholes available. I don't particularly blame them, the system allows it. The blame lies solely with the people in charge of the system. Neither party have ever done anything to close the loopholes because it suits them. The best investment the government could make is in increasing numbers at HMRC. They literally pay for themselves. So much dodginess about and it never gets punished. Even when people are caught blatantly evading tax they get a telling off and the punishment is to pay their tax. There is almost no deterrent not to do it. The whole avoid/evade blurriness is a scam.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you have posted.
Either you properly enforce what is in place and tighten up on avoidance and evasion. More people fully into PAYE or similar mechanisms. Close the F***ing loopholes.
OR you accept the structure needs to change more towards what I have proposed and accept people will always look to screw things. At least the tax burden would shift to a morally better place.
I have little confidence any Government will make any meaningful changes, which makes me quite sad.
 
indeedido said:
Close the F***ing loopholes.
Click to expand...
This is the simple truth. There is no good reason for loopholes to exist, they exist so that people can exploit them. There is no reason for organisations like Eton College to have "charitable" status they are because they are favoured by the landed elite. It is time we realised that this cartoon is a simple truth of the way we are manipulated by the Media
cookies.jpg
 
Trug said:
If the same effort went into collecting taxes that goes into so called benefit cheats this conversation would not even be happening
Click to expand...
Or if the head of HMRC was not allowed to join the organisation you just did a £ 5 Billion plus deal with, by deal I mean wrote off.

Although I differ often with CTC on Corruption, that was nothing more than sestemic corruption.
 
Last edited:
indeedido said:
Christ mate, relocating from Whitby to The Medway towns?
You sure you made the right choice?
Click to expand...
30 miles from London and miles of countryside from my house to the sea. I love it. I lived in Gillingham for a while, we never used the town centre other than for the train. I wouldn’t live in Chatham.
 
JaenBoro said:
Whitby youngsters move all over. And it isn't something new. I left in 1987 for Uni then permanently when Uni finished and almost nobody I went to school with is still there.

The fact is it isn't only housing costs driving that - its also the lack of decent jobs.

Its a big contrast to Tyneside where I moved to for work. There everyone seemed to have grown up together, went to school together and were still living in the same place and with the same friends. I was a bit jealous of them for that to be honest. My best friends are in Leeds, Sheffield, Utrecht, Bridlington, etc. I don't see them very often! When I go back to Whitby, I'm lucky if I run into one person I know.
Click to expand...
I had similar experience but in 1980 - when I graduated there were very few jobs in Whitby, except bar work, selling ice creams in the summer. I think one guy managed to get a job as a solicitor and another made a living from selling Prudential financial products (he knew a lot of local people and could mix with anyone). Another came back as an accountant after getting experience in Bradford and then set up with the Pru selling one, selling private pensions etc. in the 1980s people travelled to Scarborough for work or even ICI Wilton etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top