Tax on £1mill Property - LibDems
21 September 2009, 11:21 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I only just saw this....
...don't you realise that this is what we already have? Do you really think the system we current endure does not kick ppl out of their homes after they have worked really hard for all of their life?
1) Council tax is an arbitary amount that can be set at just about any level. Yes there are caps and politics plays a part, but look at the increases over the years. People are already being forced to leave their homes because of the general increases
2) The banding system was not well done initially. Some houses are in the wrong bands. Areas have also changed. Houses that used to be not that desirable have become so. There will be a revaluation at some point (especially if Labour get back in). You will then find people will once again get kicked out of their own homes
3) Loss of income, yet you cannot reduce your council tax bill.
4) Reduced value of investments meaning your pension is not as large as expected, hence you have to move.
Pretending that the current system does not do this to you is just putting your head into the sand. For as long as you have a council tax system that is based on the value of your property, expensive properties will always cost more. Additionally, in my opinion they really expensive ones should cost a little extra.
...don't you realise that this is what we already have? Do you really think the system we current endure does not kick ppl out of their homes after they have worked really hard for all of their life?
1) Council tax is an arbitary amount that can be set at just about any level. Yes there are caps and politics plays a part, but look at the increases over the years. People are already being forced to leave their homes because of the general increases
2) The banding system was not well done initially. Some houses are in the wrong bands. Areas have also changed. Houses that used to be not that desirable have become so. There will be a revaluation at some point (especially if Labour get back in). You will then find people will once again get kicked out of their own homes
3) Loss of income, yet you cannot reduce your council tax bill.
4) Reduced value of investments meaning your pension is not as large as expected, hence you have to move.
Pretending that the current system does not do this to you is just putting your head into the sand. For as long as you have a council tax system that is based on the value of your property, expensive properties will always cost more. Additionally, in my opinion they really expensive ones should cost a little extra.
22 September 2009, 01:01 AM
#33
To be fair, people who earn more already pay more as they pay a higher % of tax anyway. If we really need to hit the wealthy harder, I'd say take even more that way, put an end to tax havens etc.
Property is too funny a market to target. TKs example may not be mega common, but it won't be rare either. People will be in positions where their homes have increased in value over the years, but it doesn't make them rich people. Our home (ex council)was bought for only about 19 grand, similar houses in the same street have sold for well over 100. Not the same as million pound homes, but it goes to show how values increase even with little done, just down to the market changes. And this is up north, so god knows what does on down south.
The only real way is to take directly from peoples earnings, as a measure of belongings just doesn't consider enough variables. Oh and shake up the benefits system so those who can work have to. Imo, both ends of the spectrum need to be addressed.
This comes from little old me earning little over 10 thousand a year, and grafting hard for it (partner not much different).
Alot is wrong in this country, but this is certainly not a measure I'd support. Someone needs to look at the big picture, and tackle it as a whole, not sweeping in without considering all the factors.
Property is too funny a market to target. TKs example may not be mega common, but it won't be rare either. People will be in positions where their homes have increased in value over the years, but it doesn't make them rich people. Our home (ex council)was bought for only about 19 grand, similar houses in the same street have sold for well over 100. Not the same as million pound homes, but it goes to show how values increase even with little done, just down to the market changes. And this is up north, so god knows what does on down south.
The only real way is to take directly from peoples earnings, as a measure of belongings just doesn't consider enough variables. Oh and shake up the benefits system so those who can work have to. Imo, both ends of the spectrum need to be addressed.
This comes from little old me earning little over 10 thousand a year, and grafting hard for it (partner not much different).
Alot is wrong in this country, but this is certainly not a measure I'd support. Someone needs to look at the big picture, and tackle it as a whole, not sweeping in without considering all the factors.
22 September 2009, 07:42 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
the rich pay a much smaller % of their income in tax
the tax burden in thius country falls most heavily on the lower middle class earning PAYE incomes of between 25-40 K a year
it even seemed odd to Damon Buffini -- who has a personal fortune of over 100 million pounds
he commented on the fact that as a % of his income he paid much much less than the cleaner who cleaned his offices
in fact he was paying as little as 8% on an income of several million pounds a year
whereas a person getting a job coming and off benefits can pay a marginal tax rate of 80%
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 22 September 2009 at 07:44 AM.
22 September 2009, 09:05 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tax the rich too high and they will leave.
I'm sure if this tax was introduced, it would be spent on the lazy, the 10% of the population that pretend they are sick or don't want to work and sponge off the rest of us. The country is a disaster, much of it coming from the mind-set of the masses that want to do as little as possible whilst being housed, fed, clothed and provided with Sky TV so they can sit on their lazy ***** all day doing sweet FA.
It's only going to get worse and with the debt this Government has run up, not only will we be paying it off for the rest of our lives, so will our children - they have been an absolute disaster and only with time will people realise the full extent of it. Any of you that can leave, go for it - it will never be the same again and the cost of servicing this debt over the next 50 years will be extreme - it will cost every one of us big time.
I'm sure if this tax was introduced, it would be spent on the lazy, the 10% of the population that pretend they are sick or don't want to work and sponge off the rest of us. The country is a disaster, much of it coming from the mind-set of the masses that want to do as little as possible whilst being housed, fed, clothed and provided with Sky TV so they can sit on their lazy ***** all day doing sweet FA.
It's only going to get worse and with the debt this Government has run up, not only will we be paying it off for the rest of our lives, so will our children - they have been an absolute disaster and only with time will people realise the full extent of it. Any of you that can leave, go for it - it will never be the same again and the cost of servicing this debt over the next 50 years will be extreme - it will cost every one of us big time.
22 September 2009, 10:11 AM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Absolutely. Can't people see that if you start to charge too much for something then overall receipts fall, so you charge more, receipts fall again, etc etc. People won't buy something if it's too expensive. So the price should be dropped .... doh!
The same for income tax (or taxes of any form), make it too high and less people pay it. From Around the World in 80 ideas (not that I visit this web site - just that Google picked it up when I was looking for a reference) ..... "... In the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher came to power when top income tax rates were 83% - plus an 'unearned income' surcharge of 15% if the income derived from investments rather than from wages or salary - making the effective rate 98% for those living on pensions or other investment assets. She quickly reduced the top rate to 60%, and then to 40%. The 'brain drain' of ambitious Britons going to work overseas was staunched, while wealthy and prominent people like the actor Michael Caine and the novelist Frederick Forsyth returned from their tax havens. And for these and other reasons, the Treasury discovered that the top 1% and 5% of taxpayers were paying a far larger share of the tax burden than they had done before. Where the top 10% contributed 32% of the tax take before the cuts, they were contributing 45% of it afterwards.
In 1987, the Republic of Ireland's minority government brought in tax cuts that were possibly even deeper than those of Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. Taxes were cut from 40% of GDP in the late 1980s, to about 32%. There were other factors, such as a parallel cut in public expenditures and large relief payments from the European Union, but the years following the tax cut saw growth soaring (indeed, from negative growth to rates approaching 10%), a cut in the unemployment rate from 17% to around 3.5%, and again, talented people who had 'brain drained' abroad returning home ...."
I would have thought the powers-that-be would want all the tax take they could to pay for increased unemployment, etc?
Trouble is all the parties are the same. What can we scr3w out of the electorate in taxes?????
Dave
PS: not sure I'd advocate tax reductions just so we could get back "... prominent people like the actor Michael Caine and the novelist Frederick Forsyth ...". That's be a good reason to keep them high ...
The same for income tax (or taxes of any form), make it too high and less people pay it. From Around the World in 80 ideas (not that I visit this web site - just that Google picked it up when I was looking for a reference) ..... "... In the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher came to power when top income tax rates were 83% - plus an 'unearned income' surcharge of 15% if the income derived from investments rather than from wages or salary - making the effective rate 98% for those living on pensions or other investment assets. She quickly reduced the top rate to 60%, and then to 40%. The 'brain drain' of ambitious Britons going to work overseas was staunched, while wealthy and prominent people like the actor Michael Caine and the novelist Frederick Forsyth returned from their tax havens. And for these and other reasons, the Treasury discovered that the top 1% and 5% of taxpayers were paying a far larger share of the tax burden than they had done before. Where the top 10% contributed 32% of the tax take before the cuts, they were contributing 45% of it afterwards.
In 1987, the Republic of Ireland's minority government brought in tax cuts that were possibly even deeper than those of Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. Taxes were cut from 40% of GDP in the late 1980s, to about 32%. There were other factors, such as a parallel cut in public expenditures and large relief payments from the European Union, but the years following the tax cut saw growth soaring (indeed, from negative growth to rates approaching 10%), a cut in the unemployment rate from 17% to around 3.5%, and again, talented people who had 'brain drained' abroad returning home ...."
I would have thought the powers-that-be would want all the tax take they could to pay for increased unemployment, etc?
Trouble is all the parties are the same. What can we scr3w out of the electorate in taxes?????
Dave
PS: not sure I'd advocate tax reductions just so we could get back "... prominent people like the actor Michael Caine and the novelist Frederick Forsyth ...". That's be a good reason to keep them high ...
22 September 2009, 10:17 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that argument, but its not really fair on the people who live in the country. Not everyone who is rich will chose to leave if taxes are raised for them. Loopholes that people have used in the past can be closed. There are measures that can be introduced that force people who earn more to pay more.
At any rate, looking at our debt the best course of action is probably to jump ship anyway. This country is going to be crippled with interest payments
At any rate, looking at our debt the best course of action is probably to jump ship anyway. This country is going to be crippled with interest payments
22 September 2009, 10:48 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Ali and Turbo Kitty. Too much tax on the wealty will persuade them to leave for a cheaper country to live in and that will not help the rest of us out anyway.
Quite ridiculous to base extra tax on the value of someone's house. They are already paying extra council tax anyway and the extra tax on their incomes if they are well off in that respect. As T Kitty said, someone can easily find themselves in a vaulable house due to property value changes but their income may well not have kept up with that.
It is Cable scraping the barrel to find a way to finance his party's spending policies.
les
Quite ridiculous to base extra tax on the value of someone's house. They are already paying extra council tax anyway and the extra tax on their incomes if they are well off in that respect. As T Kitty said, someone can easily find themselves in a vaulable house due to property value changes but their income may well not have kept up with that.
It is Cable scraping the barrel to find a way to finance his party's spending policies.
les
22 September 2009, 11:23 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree (suprisingly) with most on here.
It's pure folly to think that you can draw a straight line between the value of someone's property and their wealth. And all this from a party that wanted to do away with property taxes!!
Property taxes are also very unfair and and expensive to collect. I say let's have some honesty here, we need to get more money in to pay for stuff then put up income tax, it certainly the 'fairest' taxation.
It's pure folly to think that you can draw a straight line between the value of someone's property and their wealth. And all this from a party that wanted to do away with property taxes!!
Property taxes are also very unfair and and expensive to collect. I say let's have some honesty here, we need to get more money in to pay for stuff then put up income tax, it certainly the 'fairest' taxation.
22 September 2009, 11:31 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree (suprisingly) with most on here.
It's pure folly to think that you can draw a straight line between the value of someone's property and their wealth. And all this from a party that wanted to do away with property taxes!!
Property taxes are also very unfair and and expensive to collect. I say let's have some honesty here, we need to get more money in to pay for stuff then put up income tax, it certainly the 'fairest' taxation.
It's pure folly to think that you can draw a straight line between the value of someone's property and their wealth. And all this from a party that wanted to do away with property taxes!!
Property taxes are also very unfair and and expensive to collect. I say let's have some honesty here, we need to get more money in to pay for stuff then put up income tax, it certainly the 'fairest' taxation.
I don't particularly agree with the council tax system at all, but one thing is true, its very much harder to hide a house than it is to hide some money in an offshore bank.
22 September 2009, 12:01 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
it not some wierd and crazy idea to expect people to pay the tax due
most European countries have some sort of high end wealth tax
The American IRS requires all US citizens to account for tax regardless of where they live
it seems a peculiarly British way -- after all we preside over 90% of the worlds tax havens
most European countries have some sort of high end wealth tax
The American IRS requires all US citizens to account for tax regardless of where they live
it seems a peculiarly British way -- after all we preside over 90% of the worlds tax havens
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 22 September 2009 at 12:04 PM.
22 September 2009, 12:08 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the low wage whinging **** that say the rich should pay more, well we do. I pay so much income tax, corp tax, council tax, tax on my savings, tax on everything, so enough is enough. Not my fault you lot are stupid and cant get yourself a decent paying job. You should of studied harder, made more of yourself instead of sitting around, smoking ya tabs, claiming dole.
So now you want to tax our homes, homes that we had to work for, save for, whilst paying 40% on our income for, then larger stamp duty, larger council tax, etc etc.
Anything over 1million eh ? ok, then I'll make sure my house is valued and will never go over 990K. As much as the stupid people want to tax the wealthy, the wealthy will find ways not to pay.
However, I do agree that the poor do need help, and I dont mind my taxes helping them. ITs the lazy I hate, the people that claim because they are too lazy to work, lying about being medically ill, working on the side without paying tax. Unfortunately the country is now full of those types.
As for Lib Dems ?? Waste of time, so its pointless really worrying about it.
SBK
So now you want to tax our homes, homes that we had to work for, save for, whilst paying 40% on our income for, then larger stamp duty, larger council tax, etc etc.
Anything over 1million eh ? ok, then I'll make sure my house is valued and will never go over 990K. As much as the stupid people want to tax the wealthy, the wealthy will find ways not to pay.
However, I do agree that the poor do need help, and I dont mind my taxes helping them. ITs the lazy I hate, the people that claim because they are too lazy to work, lying about being medically ill, working on the side without paying tax. Unfortunately the country is now full of those types.
As for Lib Dems ?? Waste of time, so its pointless really worrying about it.
SBK
Last edited by Simon K; 22 September 2009 at 12:18 PM.
22 September 2009, 12:14 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the low wage whinging **** that say the rich should pay more, well we do. I pay so much income tax, corp tax, council tax, tax on my savings, tax on everything, so enough is enough. Not my fault you lot are stupid and cant get yourself a decent paying job. You should of studied harder, made more of yourself instead of taking to take it off me.
So now you want to tax our homes, homes that we had to work for, save for, whilst paying 40% on our income for, , then larger stamp duty, larger council tax, etc etc.
Anything over 1million eh ? ok, then I'll make sure my house is valued and will never go over 990K.
As much as the stupid people want to tax the wealthy, the wealthy will find ways not to pay.
SBK
So now you want to tax our homes, homes that we had to work for, save for, whilst paying 40% on our income for, , then larger stamp duty, larger council tax, etc etc.
Anything over 1million eh ? ok, then I'll make sure my house is valued and will never go over 990K.
As much as the stupid people want to tax the wealthy, the wealthy will find ways not to pay.
SBK
If you pay at the higher rate you are already paying a disproportionate amount.
I'm quite a fan of flattening out the tax system, assuming that the poor can be lifted out of taxation altogether. Get rid of VAT NI and Countcil Tax, and have one income tax.
22 September 2009, 12:58 PM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
I reckon we should just go to a 10% flat rate system. Maybe starting at an income of £10K pa? If nothing else this would remove almost all of the complexity that Flash has injected into the tax/benefits system in the last dozen years. (The man is a total control freak!). See here for pros and cons (applied to the US but most of the arguments hold true over here) ... http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj5n2/cj5n2-14.pdfWould it work? According to Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"... Some claim the flat tax will increase tax revenues, by simplifying the tax code and removing the many loopholes currently exploit to pay less tax. The Russian Federation is a claimed case in point; the real revenues from its Personal Income Tax rose by 25.2% in the first year after the Federation introduced a flat tax, followed by a 24.6% increase in the second year, and a 15.2% increase in the third year.The Laffer curve predicts such an outcome, but attributes the primary reason for the greater revenue to higher levels of economic growth. The Russian example is often used as proof of this, although an IMF study in 2006 found that there was no sign "of Laffer-type behavioral responses generating revenue increases from the tax cut elements of these reforms" in Russia or in other countries ...".
Oh, hang on. Most of HMRC (or wehatever they're called these days ...) would not be needed .....
Dave
22 September 2009, 01:06 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about toughening up on dole cheats?
Getting the career unemployed back to work and not claiming
Wasting money in local and National Gov't
Cheating taxpayers by claiming false expenses?
British jobs for British workers first and foremost
Catching and deporting the 1m est. illegals
Forcing the banks to lend to businesses
Stop giving so much money to the EU for little (visible) returns
Just for a start, leaving those who have worked hard and invested wisely and made money in property alone
Getting the career unemployed back to work and not claiming
Wasting money in local and National Gov't
Cheating taxpayers by claiming false expenses?
British jobs for British workers first and foremost
Catching and deporting the 1m est. illegals
Forcing the banks to lend to businesses
Stop giving so much money to the EU for little (visible) returns
Just for a start, leaving those who have worked hard and invested wisely and made money in property alone
22 September 2009, 01:24 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about toughening up on dole cheats?
Getting the career unemployed back to work and not claiming
Wasting money in local and National Gov't
Cheating taxpayers by claiming false expenses?
British jobs for British workers first and foremost
Catching and deporting the 1m est. illegals
Forcing the banks to lend to businesses
Stop giving so much money to the EU for little (visible) returns
Just for a start, leaving those who have worked hard and invested wisely and made money in property alone
Getting the career unemployed back to work and not claiming
Wasting money in local and National Gov't
Cheating taxpayers by claiming false expenses?
British jobs for British workers first and foremost
Catching and deporting the 1m est. illegals
Forcing the banks to lend to businesses
Stop giving so much money to the EU for little (visible) returns
Just for a start, leaving those who have worked hard and invested wisely and made money in property alone
Having a bad day Paul?
That looks like a list of Daily Mail headlines fella
22 September 2009, 01:35 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
How about toughening up on dole cheats?
Getting the career unemployed back to work and not claiming
Wasting money in local and National Gov't
Cheating taxpayers by claiming false expenses?
British jobs for British workers first and foremost
Catching and deporting the 1m est. illegals
Forcing the banks to lend to businesses
Stop giving so much money to the EU for little (visible) returns
Just for a start, leaving those who have worked hard and invested wisely and made money in property alone
Getting the career unemployed back to work and not claiming
Wasting money in local and National Gov't
Cheating taxpayers by claiming false expenses?
British jobs for British workers first and foremost
Catching and deporting the 1m est. illegals
Forcing the banks to lend to businesses
Stop giving so much money to the EU for little (visible) returns
Just for a start, leaving those who have worked hard and invested wisely and made money in property alone
That'll do for starters. Only the DM has headlines like this? Seems they all should *IF* they actually represented the vast majority in this country...
Dave
22 September 2009, 05:21 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Why should we need to create an ever increasing tax burden on anybody anyway 
Why do politicians never promise to look properly at reducing Government spending
Pointless, unworkable IT projects that have no consultation with the people who actually have to use them, which always go massively over budget
Pointless ID card schemes which go massively over budget and will do little to diminish the so-called 'terrorist threat'
Massive expenditures on vaccines for a virus that has so far killed less people in total, worldwide, than die on roads every month
Continually paying out huge sums of money to 10% of the population who have absolutely no intention of ever earning an honest living
If a political party promised to do something about that, I'd vote for them
Why do politicians never promise to look properly at reducing Government spending
Pointless, unworkable IT projects that have no consultation with the people who actually have to use them, which always go massively over budget
Pointless ID card schemes which go massively over budget and will do little to diminish the so-called 'terrorist threat'
Massive expenditures on vaccines for a virus that has so far killed less people in total, worldwide, than die on roads every month
Continually paying out huge sums of money to 10% of the population who have absolutely no intention of ever earning an honest living
If a political party promised to do something about that, I'd vote for them
22 September 2009, 06:57 PM
#51
To the low wage whinging **** that say the rich should pay more, well we do. I pay so much income tax, corp tax, council tax, tax on my savings, tax on everything, so enough is enough. Not my fault you lot are stupid and cant get yourself a decent paying job. You should of studied harder, made more of yourself instead of sitting around, smoking ya tabs, claiming dole.
So now you want to tax our homes, homes that we had to work for, save for, whilst paying 40% on our income for, then larger stamp duty, larger council tax, etc etc.
Anything over 1million eh ? ok, then I'll make sure my house is valued and will never go over 990K. As much as the stupid people want to tax the wealthy, the wealthy will find ways not to pay.
However, I do agree that the poor do need help, and I dont mind my taxes helping them. ITs the lazy I hate, the people that claim because they are too lazy to work, lying about being medically ill, working on the side without paying tax. Unfortunately the country is now full of those types.
As for Lib Dems ?? Waste of time, so its pointless really worrying about it.
SBK
So now you want to tax our homes, homes that we had to work for, save for, whilst paying 40% on our income for, then larger stamp duty, larger council tax, etc etc.
Anything over 1million eh ? ok, then I'll make sure my house is valued and will never go over 990K. As much as the stupid people want to tax the wealthy, the wealthy will find ways not to pay.
However, I do agree that the poor do need help, and I dont mind my taxes helping them. ITs the lazy I hate, the people that claim because they are too lazy to work, lying about being medically ill, working on the side without paying tax. Unfortunately the country is now full of those types.
As for Lib Dems ?? Waste of time, so its pointless really worrying about it.
SBK
To assume anyone working in a lower paid job is stupid etc. is extremely unfair, and personally insulting. Oh and it's not just the well paid that work hard either.
I do fully support shaking up the benefits system, to put an end to people just being career scroungers (not talking about genuine people here). I would imagine a fair bit could be saved that way.
22 September 2009, 08:53 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: www.Surreyscoobies.co.uk
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At work today we dealt with about 10 clients asking for possible legal loopholes incase one of the big two parties adopt this idea.
As it turns out its is a very workable tax, They have it in a lot of states in the US and have had for years.
But along with that comes a lot of ways out of paying it. Best idea today was putting the letter "A" on your back door, making half the house 12 and half 12a for example.
I think its a tax that would be to overt for any of the parties over here, They like taking your money from underneath you a lot more.
As it turns out its is a very workable tax, They have it in a lot of states in the US and have had for years.
But along with that comes a lot of ways out of paying it. Best idea today was putting the letter "A" on your back door, making half the house 12 and half 12a for example.
I think its a tax that would be to overt for any of the parties over here, They like taking your money from underneath you a lot more.
22 September 2009, 09:31 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
they must have houses way over the 1 bar threshold then -- otherwise the potential saving would not cover professional fees involed
The new charge of 0.5% would apply to the value of a property above £1m. So if a home was worth £1.5m the 0.5% tax would apply to £500,000 of it, meaning the owner will have to pay £2,500 a year. The extra tax on a £4m property would be £15,000 a year.
The new charge of 0.5% would apply to the value of a property above £1m. So if a home was worth £1.5m the 0.5% tax would apply to £500,000 of it, meaning the owner will have to pay £2,500 a year. The extra tax on a £4m property would be £15,000 a year.
23 September 2009, 01:04 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not how I would of worded it, but I sort of agree with the sentiment.
If you pay at the higher rate you are already paying a disproportionate amount.
I'm quite a fan of flattening out the tax system, assuming that the poor can be lifted out of taxation altogether. Get rid of VAT NI and Countcil Tax, and have one income tax.
If you pay at the higher rate you are already paying a disproportionate amount.
I'm quite a fan of flattening out the tax system, assuming that the poor can be lifted out of taxation altogether. Get rid of VAT NI and Countcil Tax, and have one income tax.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Wingnuttzz
Member's Gallery
30
26 April 2022 11:15 PM
