[Closed] Is the proposed Lib Dem tax on £1 million plus homes . . .

I'm in two minds really.

I can see the argument that the banding system means that folk in massive multi-million pound houses pay exactly the same amount of council tax as folk in considerably smaller (but still expensive) Band H houses. And that "isn't fair".

On the flip side, that is a pretty poor justification. Are the folk in the massive houses actually using any more local council resources? Do they have more bins to collect? Do they drive more? I doubt they use the council buses more.

Also in rural Scotland, £1 million buys you a proper mansion and grounds. Whereas it would only buy you a 1 bed apartment in central London. So it's arguably not a fair tax on luxurious lifestyles either.

Envy Tax.

Will the money be spent wisely?

never going to happen why would the mp's want to tax themselves??

Will the money be spent wisely?

Well they plan to use the money to raise basic income tax thresholds to £10,000, lifting four million low-pay workers out of tax.

All a bit irrelevant really since the LibDems will not be our next Government or the one after that and the one after that ....

irrelevant, as somebody said - that means they don't have to think it through

(better if it was houses over somerandomnumber x average value in that postcode, or something)

What interesting times we live in, the Lib Dems proposing bigger 'hits' on the rich than the Labour party. Of course as touched upon already neither the Lib Dems nor Labour will be forming the next government so its all so much waffle.

Estate agent was on five 5 saying how it was unfair as it would penalise those in London. Err, if you live in / can afford to pay for a £1m plus house then it shouldn't matter where you live.

But no idea how they'll evaluate if your house is £1m plus. "Well it was two years ago but it's not now. Can I have a rebate please?"

Easier to just slap the tax on all home owners inside the M25 and anyone in the countryside with more than 10 acres.

yet another caning of people who conscientiously put their hard earned money into their property instead of spending it on countless evenings down the pub

so we can all have million pound pads if we lay of the booze ??

Why not just tax everyone on a sliding scale according to how much they earn? There could be some sort of minimum income so that the poorest don't have to pay anything, and a higher rate of taxation for those earning above a higher sum.

As said above, headline grabbing envy tax. Most political parties ideas of the well off don't actually tally with what most of us would consider to be well off either. Not sure that tax would raise enough to lift the tax threshold much. Hammering the super rich often doesn't generate that much income (particularly after their accountants have sorted it). We really just need to significantly scale back the state and make sure what is spent gets good value for money.

-Stop treating the NHS like a sacred cow.
-Scale back the number of under graduates to a more economically viable
number.
-Stop wasting money on social engineering projects that have been shown not to work (surestart).
-Dump trident.
-Get out of Iraq / Afganistan.

etc. etc.

It's a shame targets etc. have such a bad press in government / media circles, how can you check the money is being spent wisely if you don't have some sort of performance criteria?

I like your thinking druidh. A tax based on income. An "income tax" if you will. Can't see that working tho - rich folk are far to good at dodging tax and plenty of income would come from untaxable sources. Nice idea though 😉

Why not just tax everyone on a sliding scale according to how much they earn?

Just a small thing,

mega earners already pay more tax then normal earners do proportionally,
ie, up to 80p in the £ in some cases, how can it be justified to tax them even more yet again ?

Completely agree with the 'dump Trident' comment btw. If the UK needs to keep some form of nuclear capability just to retain its seat on the security council then there are far cheaper ways of doing it than spending a large slice of the UK's defence budget on a fleet of subs that can only really sit on the bottom of the sea and await WW3. Trident missiles are hardly proving useful in the never ending 'war on terror' though the delivery platform for an air-launched alternative could quite easily be re-roled for conventional operations should the need arise.

[img] [/img]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

neverfastenuff - Member

Just a small thing,

mega earners already pay more tax then normal earners do proportionally,
ie, up to 80p in the £ in some cases

Really? I thought it was the other way around

Its a total joke of a policy. You don't have to be rich to have a £1M house, there are plenty of old widows and the like living round here in houses that are around that value now. Not sure why people like that should be penalised for appreciation in asset value beyond their control.

However the liberals will need headline grabbing policies like this to avoid loosing out to a conservative swing in their heartlands, so it doesn't surprise me, this could be a vote winner in the west country.

What does it matter?
They have a zero chance of being elected so they can pretty much make as many 'pie in the sky' policies as they like without the fear of ever having to implement them

All a bit irrelevant really since the LibDems will not be our next Government .......

Not at all imo. If Labour or the Tories see their votes starting to haemorrhage to another party as a result of that party's policies, then they will certainly take into account that party's policies when formulating their own. Neither party can afford to lose votes to the LibDems.

As far as the policy itself is concerned, it's just a meaningless political gesture imo, designed as a distraction from Nick Clegg's true economic agenda.

An economic agenda which is almost indistinguishable from the Tory Party one. Indeed David Cameron yesterday said, that there was not a "cigarette paper" between himself and Nick Clegg. And one which in the words of Nick Clegg himself, will include "savage cuts" and a pay freeze - something which is likely to cause severe hardship to ordinary people, and have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the super-rich.

IMO, Nick Clegg's election as LibDem leader, was the most serious drawback of recent British political history. Today, with New Labour utterly discredited, and Tories completely unable to provide a serious alternative (indeed it was the Tories who first championed the economic policies which have got us in this mess) a third party offering an alternative would be raking in the votes.

Certainly if they had played their cards right, I would have expected the LibDems to be on something like 30% of the vote right now.

Unfortunately the LibDems under Nick Clegg, have belatedly decided to jump on the neo-liberal bandwagon. Just at a time when free-market fundamentalism is being discredited like never before - even in the United States ffs. Nick Clegg has effectively, removed the LibDems "raison d'etat".

In 1997, appalled at the prospect of a New Labour landslide victory, I canvassed for the LibDems, as they were the only party which still had a social-democratic agenda. I can't begin to describe how dismayed I was when Nick Clegg became leader - why the ****, couldn't that ginger-headed git lay off the booze ? 😐 Having said that, the LibDems still have some good MPs. And I would probably still support Paul Burstow (the MP which I canvassed for)

As said above, headline grabbing envy tax. Most political parties ideas of the well off don't actually tally with what most of us would consider to be well off either. Not sure that tax would raise enough to lift the tax threshold much. Hammering the super rich often doesn't generate that much income (particularly after their accountants have sorted it). We really just need to significantly scale back the state and make sure what is spent gets good value for money.

-Stop treating the NHS like a sacred cow.
-Scale back the number of under graduates to a more economically viable
number.
-Stop wasting money on social engineering projects that have been shown not to work (surestart).
-Dump trident.
-Get out of Iraq / Afganistan.

etc. etc.

It's a shame targets etc. have such a bad press in government / media circles, how can you check the money is being spent wisely if you don't have some sort of performance criteria?

+1

Sort the benefits system out. It's not difficult to identify those that have no intention to ever work. Not because they cant, because they wont.

No job & clearly no intention of getting one? Ok then, a set time period to get a job, any job. No job at the end of that time period = no more benefits. Low paid jobs should be topped up with benefits but for those that have no intention to ever work and are happy to live off the state need to have some fear instilled in them. Fear that they will lose everything if they don't make an effort. I have a fear. A fear that if I lose my job I'll lose my house, my wife, my life. The thought never even enters my head that someone will magically provide for me. That fear is what sends me out to work every day.

As said above, headline grabbing envy tax. Most political parties ideas of the well off don't actually tally with what most of us would consider to be well off either. Not sure that tax would raise enough to lift the tax threshold much. Hammering the super rich often doesn't generate that much income (particularly after their accountants have sorted it). We really just need to significantly scale back the state and make sure what is spent gets good value for money.

-Stop treating the NHS like a sacred cow.
-Scale back the number of under graduates to a more economically viable
number.
-Stop wasting money on social engineering projects that have been shown not to work (surestart).
-Dump trident.
-Get out of Iraq / Afganistan.

etc. etc.

It's a shame targets etc. have such a bad press in government / media circles, how can you check the money is being spent wisely if you don't have some sort of performance criteria?

Spoken like a true accountant.

Completely agree with the 'dump Trident' comment btw. If the UK needs to keep some form of nuclear capability just to retain its seat on the security council then there are far cheaper ways of doing it than spending a large slice of the UK's defence budget on a fleet of subs that can only really sit on the bottom of the sea and await WW3. Trident missiles are hardly proving useful in the never ending 'war on terror' though the delivery platform for an air-launched alternative could quite easily be re-roled for conventional operations should the need arise.

Air launched? I know you're ex-Raf, but an SSBN is less detectable than all those aircraft sitting on their airfields.

Ernie - Unfortunately many sheep in this country won't vote for good local MPs, preferring to vote purely based on the person at the top, which is why a few good 'proper' Labour MPs/Councillors have lost their seats of late.

El-bent - Do you really think those large nuclear propulsion units that power SSBNs are completly undetectable to 'them'? Plus, as nuclear weapons are the ultimate white elephants isn't it better to have the ability to use their never-likely-to-be-used-for-making-instant-sunshine delivery systems for other purposes? Yes I may be 'ex-RAF' but that doesn't mean I'm blind to economic reality. The US can and do use their nuclear-capable B1s, B2s and B52s for convential missions whilst the USNs and RNs boomers float around the North Atlantic plotting whale migration when they're not pretending its the 1980s. If you want a non-air launched nuclear option though what us wrong with tube-launched cruise missiles? Can even stick them in cheaper (and quiter) diesel-electric subs.

I have a fear. A fear that if I lose my job I'll lose my house, my wife, my life. The thought never even enters my head that someone will magically provide for me. That fear is what sends me out to work every day.

Good point, well put.

Sound bites & posturing is all it is - just an attempt to look/say something different to the Tories & Labour.

Suppose it makes a change from Lib Dems getting splinters in their backsides though, no matter how pointless an exercise it is.

[i]druidh - Member
Why not just tax everyone on a sliding scale according to how much they earn?
[/i]

Why not just simplify it further and tax everyone at the same % rate regardless of what they earn, no tax relief, no allowances, no rebates except expenses, nice and simple flat rate taxation.

[i]There could be some sort of minimum income so that the poorest don't have to pay anything, and a higher rate of taxation for those earning above a higher sum.[/i]

Those who earn less pay less, those who earn more pay more - I thought thats how percentages worked anyway!

[i]Yoda - Member
Just think of the drawbacks
- less complicated tax system so less civil servants needed to administer it[/i]

Or perhaps more accurately written as 'less[s] civil servants [/s] vital middle class swing voters needed to administer it' - otherwise known as 'turkeys don't vote for christmas'

djglover - Member

Its a total joke of a policy. You don't have to be rich to have a £1M house,

Are you Cherie Blair?

BoardinBob
Low paid jobs should be topped up with benefits

WTF should they? You either get paid a wage or you don't. Unless you're a communist. Maybe you are.

You either get paid a wage or you don't. Unless you're a communist.

Why should a communist have his wages topped up with benefits ?

El-bent - Do you really think those large nuclear propulsion units that power SSBNs are completly undetectable to 'them'? Plus, as nuclear weapons are the ultimate white elephants isn't it better to have the ability to use their never-likely-to-be-used-for-making-instant-sunshine delivery systems for other purposes? Yes I may be 'ex-RAF' but that doesn't mean I'm blind to economic reality. The US can and do use their nuclear-capable B1s, B2s and B52s for convential missions whilst the USNs and RNs boomers float around the North Atlantic plotting whale migration when they're not pretending its the 1980s. If you want a non-air launched nuclear option though what us wrong with tube-launched cruise missiles? Can even stick them in cheaper (and quiter) diesel-electric subs.

I seem to have put in my previous posting "less detectable". The US can afford nuclear-capable bombers, but they are not so stupid as to totally rely on them as a deterrent, which is why they also have land based missiles and SSBN's. We can only afford to choose one and it's the best one as we share the missiles with the US. Since we are talking economics here, can you honestly say an air launched version will be cheaper when taking into account the development costs of such weapons, handling and storage and undoubtedly the fleet of aircraft that will have to be maintained? I amazed at your naivety when it comes to Cruise missiles, It isn't really a deterrent if the airbase can be destroyed, the aircraft shot down and the cruise missile intercepted.

And most importantly, we shouldn't be giving up our deterrent for purely economic purposes.

Why not just simplify it further and tax everyone at the same % rate regardless of what they earn, no tax relief, no allowances, no rebates except expenses, nice and simple flat rate taxation.

There are very few countries that do this and with good reason, it's only fair to those who earn the most. Completely stupid for even suggesting it. 🙄

Completely stupid for even suggesting it.

Zulu-Eleven is a disciple of Dan Hannan.

So it's perfectly sensible that he should be thinking along those lines.

This smug **** btw

[img] [/img]

Why should a communist have his wages topped up with benefits ?

Where will she get the money for potato wine otherwise?

El-bent - Member

El-bent - Do you really think those large nuclear propulsion units that power SSBNs are completly undetectable to 'them'? Plus, as nuclear weapons are the ultimate white elephants isn't it better to have the ability to use their never-likely-to-be-used-for-making-instant-sunshine delivery systems for other purposes? Yes I may be 'ex-RAF' but that doesn't mean I'm blind to economic reality. The US can and do use their nuclear-capable B1s, B2s and B52s for convential missions whilst the USNs and RNs boomers float around the North Atlantic plotting whale migration when they're not pretending its the 1980s. If you want a non-air launched nuclear option though what us wrong with tube-launched cruise missiles? Can even stick them in cheaper (and quiter) diesel-electric subs.

I seem to have put in my previous posting "less detectable". The US can afford nuclear-capable bombers, but they are not so stupid as to totally rely on them as a deterrent, which is why they also have land based missiles and SSBN's. We can only afford to choose one and it's the best one as we share the missiles with the US. Since we are talking economics here, can you honestly say an air launched version will be cheaper when taking into account the development costs of such weapons, handling and storage and undoubtedly the fleet of aircraft that will have to be maintained? I amazed at your naivety when it comes to Cruise missiles, It isn't really a deterrent if the airbase can be destroyed, the aircraft shot down and the cruise missile intercepted.

And most importantly, we shouldn't be giving up our deterrent for purely economic purposes.

Why not just simplify it further and tax everyone at the same % rate regardless of what they earn, no tax relief, no allowances, no rebates except expenses, nice and simple flat rate taxation.

There are very few countries that do this and with good reason, it's only fair to those who earn the most. Completely stupid for even suggesting it.

[b]**** me, that's boring.[/b]

Where will she get the money for potato wine otherwise?

I'm sure there's something funny there Dolittle, but I can't figure it out.

But please, no need to explain.

Zulu-Eleven is a disciple of Dan Hannan.

It figures. Let hannan keep spouting his tripe, the only people who agree with him are less relevant right-whingers.

**** me, that's boring.

Don't read it then, even if it is important and clouds your brain.

I'm sure there's something funny there Dolittle, but I can't figure it out.

But please, no need to explain.

[i]Johnson.

Curiosity in children nature has provided, to remove that ignorance they were born with; which, without this busy inquisitiveness, will make them dull.[/i]

Don't read it then, even if it is important and clouds your brain.

Don't be such a pompous bellend. Anyway, it's too late, I read it.

El-bent - Dolittle always posts that sort of stuff at about this time, presumably after he's had a few sherbets.

Dolittle always posts that sort of stuff at about this time,

What sort of stuff?

And anyway, I don't have all day to post my musings.

Dolittle always posts that sort of stuff at about this time, presumably after he's had a few sherbets.

His spelling is still good ernie, So I think he's quite sober when he posts this sort of stuff.

Which is a worry.

that sort of stuff.

this sort of stuff.

What sort of stuff?

Good point El-bent. Maybe he acts like an obnoxious **** because he [i]needs[/i] a drink 💡

...... or a shag ?

Maybe he acts like an obnoxious **** because he needs a drink

...... or a shag ?

Hoho....glasshouses, stones etc...anyway, I can't sleep tonight until someone let's me know what "sort of stuff" I'm responsible for. Does anyone know?

[i]Why not just simplify it further and tax everyone at the same % rate regardless of what they earn, no tax relief, no allowances, no rebates except expenses, nice and simple flat rate taxation.[/i]

There are very few countries that do this and with good reason, [b]it's only fair to those who earn the most[/b].

How the **** do you work that out?

Fairness? How on earth is it fair for someone to not pay anything at all into the pot - if everyone pays an equal proportion of their wage, regardless of income, then it is de-facto a fair and equitable system, everybody is treated exactly the same, and everyone contributes equally in proportion to their ability to pay. those who earn less pay less, those who earn more pay more, and you don't have huge government departments pissing money up the wall processing paperwork and costing us all money.

I mean, REAL right winger loonies would say that everyone should pay according to their consumption of services, you know, things like remove income based taxation and tax only on purchases and usage, like we do with fuel, those who consume more pay more tax - you could just as equally claim that is "fair"

There are very few governments who do it? I wonder why that really is, is it because, once again, turkeys don't vote for Xmas, and government departments employing tens of thousands of staff don't propose their own abolition...

Come on ElBent, or Ernie tell me exactly WHY its unfair, and why it wouldn't work - play the ball. Its fine to shouot 'Dan Hannans a right wing nutter' but until you can construct a coherent argument saying how 'the plan' would be a problem then you simply sound like a Bob Crow apparachic

tell me exactly WHY its unfair, and why it wouldn't work

Well there's no reason to actually stop it from working, however some arguments as to why it would be unfair go like this.

The rich, and I include myself in this group, less as a proportion of their income on the basics of life (things like food, heating, transport that sort of thing) because these costs are effectively fixed. Consequently a much larger proportion of their overall income is disposable and they can therefore afford to pay tax on this portion of their income at a higher rate without having too much of a detrimental effect. There are other arguments against it too.

The major problem with the flat rate tax system as it has been proposed is that it is sold as something where everyone will win. The rich will pay less and the poor will pay nothing at all. This is clearly nonsence as assuming the tax take must remain the same an assuming that the country's earnings are also constant it is impossbile for everyone to pay less tax. The "improved effeciency" of the tax system that is always promised will never materialise. Efficiency savings never do.

Has anyone blamed Thatcher yet?

Has anyone blamed Thatcher yet?

CFH, you should probably see someone about your obsesion with Thatcher as you bring her up more than anyone else on here.

Those in glass houses....
http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2009/09/18/will-the-tories-axe-the-royal-air-force/
EEK, seems a bit harsh.
What about closing the loopholes which allow the rich to avoid income tax?
Afghanistan, right or wrong is not economically sustainable at the moment.
Can we afford the level of welfare/disability benefit that's being dished out?
Having been involved with surveying some schools recently, I must disagree with cutting funding there. In all honesty, some of the schools were at a dangerous level of neglect (no fire alarms etc).

What about closing the loopholes which allow the rich to avoid income tax?

That bit about the RAF is certainly not something I could support if it were ever to be a policy.

As to the schools thing - If Balls can suddenly find £2bn of savings/cuts without harming the system, one does have to ask, why has he been spending that £2bn to date?

[i]What about closing the loopholes which allow the rich to avoid income tax?[/i]
The Tories aren't going to do that, they'd loose their deputy chairman for a start. I imagine the other parties would also loose half their donations too.

Ah, but therein is the key, it relies on a government being bold enough to ensure that the efficiency savings DO happen - the variable in the equation has to be the overhead running costs of the government and the system in general.

The goal of simplifying the system has to be to reduce the scope and expense of the state.

Z11, I did not understand a word of that mate. Are you in politics (seriously)?.

[url=

down government costs..[/url]

you dont have to be rich to live in a 1m house

errrrrrr.................
Last time I thought about it, being a millionaire makes you rich in my book. And as for the old widdows living in 1m houses, i suspect thats a very small population group, and i'm guessing they could manage quite well (probably better in fact) in a smaller house.

I still blame thatcher.
Although without here we wouldnt have places like Wales and Northern England crying out for lottery/european money to build trail centers 🙂

Where there's a financial "interest", and there always is, in every political situation that has ever and will ever occur - people will/can rarely do what would actually be "the right thing".

It seems to me if a Political Party relies on wealthy business men to finance its existance, it would be foolish to shoot those business men?

Likewise a party that is financed by working men and/or unions, would be foolish to hammer the working man and/or unions.

I think (imho) that it is impossible for them (any government anywhere)to make the right decision when there's a profit involved somewhere, and if you take the profit (which for 99% of people is the motivation) out of the equation then surely your entering socialist/communist territory?

And when I say "profit being the motivation" I don't just mean greedy billionaire business men. I mean anyone who gets up and goes to work.

Politics is not my fav subject - so that prob doesn't make any sense.

In short "it's every man/woman/country for him/her/their self"

lol

Fairness? How on earth is it fair for someone to not pay anything at all into the pot - if everyone pays an equal proportion of their wage, regardless of income, then it is de-facto a fair and equitable system, everybody is treated exactly the same, and everyone contributes equally in proportion to their ability to pay. those who earn less pay less, those who earn more pay more, and you don't have huge government departments pissing money up the wall processing paperwork and costing us all money.

Because it will treat some fairer than others. The richer will proportionally pay the least. Are you too stupid to spot this? Quite clearly you are. I mean this was tried my a certain PM(no mentioning of names CFH) and it ended in a riot and said PM getting the boot.

Hannan is a right wing nutter, he has already caused serious offence to this country by going on fox news in the US and attacking the NHS, He just doesn't understand how much damage he cause to the right wing freak circus...long may it continue.

As for Bob crow...

[img] [/img]

Don't see him anywhere in my party. 😉

Don't see him anywhere in my party.

I hope your party is better than ernie's...no drinking, no shagging waste of time it was...

The richer will proportionally pay the least. Are you too stupid to spot this? Quite clearly you are.

I guess I'm stupid then 😳 I'm no great fan of flat rate tax, but I'm struggling to see how it would mean the rich paying "proportionally" less.

Aren't percentages generally proportional??

Can you explain?

why should the rich pay for the poor!
they have worked hard and took risks to get where they are.
why should they subsidise benefit cheats and the work shy?
don't we live in a capitalist country?
surely its upto ourselves to get out of poverty not sit around waiting for handouts because that never works!
just look at africa!

" just look at africa! "

😀 PSML !

hehe just had my 4th glass of wine sorry!

I've just finished my second bottle and the seventh shag of the day, and even I wouldn't come out with shite like that. You should be ashamed of yourself.

well if you met some of the people i have to deal with you might change your opinion dr dolittle

if you met some of the people i have to deal with

Is that the African layabouts who ponce off their government's "handouts" ?

........ have another bottle of wine me ol' fruit 8)

I worked at Hackney Mare Street jobcentreplus, so I know more about poor people, lazy people, ****wits, ****-ups and the ****ed over than you do.

Unless your friends are especially special in that regard.

na just the toothless longterm sick who drink all day then go home to watch football on their 50" plasma hd sky boxes whilst their neighbours go out to work !!!!!!!!!!

**** me dr you don@t even know where i live so how can you have an opinion on that

well if you met some of the people i have to deal with ..........the toothless longterm sick

Are you a doctor ?

just the toothless longterm sick who drink all day then go home to watch football on their 50" plasma hd sky boxes whilst their neighbours go out to work !!!!!!!!!!

All of them, or just your neighbour? If the former, there's a vacancy coming up in a few months that requires omnipresence. Requires wearing a false beard and a CRB check though. Doesn't pay much but for the mince pie bonus.

I work with a guy, nice bloke, not the brightest light on the tree, but bright enough to know that he's best off working only 16 hrs a week and getting the £259 per week "not earning much" handout the state gives him. He also gets his rent paid, he has 4 kids under 7 so he gets child benefit and his wife gets something for being a "housewife"

Total weekly income, £600. I shit you not.

this is my opinion
i have a brother who has lost his leg in an accident
has broke his pelvis twice in seperate accidents and has since retrained and works full time.
i have a sister who has arthritus,she's never worked since she was 18 but travels the country with her 11 dog's to various shows whilst claiming incapacity benifits... which one should i respect more..the one who picked himself up or the one who lay down and died.. you tell me you're the expert dr..

sst my point exactly!!

I work with a guy, nice bloke, not the brightest light on the tree, but bright enough to know that he's best off working only 16 hrs a week and getting the £259 per week "not earning much" handout the state gives him. He also gets his rent paid, he has 4 kids under 7 so he gets child benefit and his wife gets something for being a "housewife"

Considering that he could work 70 hours a week on a minimum wage and be worse off, I think he's quite sharp really. Does he have an option of an alternative?

being on benefits should not be a lifestyle option