i could pick alot of holes in that generalised statement ewan but im not giving away any more about my personal financial affairs in here.

We paid the going rate, bought what we wanted 22 years ago and stayed in it rather than continually trying to get something ‘better’

And if your mortgage was £1200/month for the same house, would you still have felt rich?
I think this is quite an important point; property is so expensive. If you want to own a 5 bed so that you can house a large family, you will need a fair whack of income (or be on welfare).

I actually admire your achievements in raising and providing for a fairly large family so well.

And jota – exactly what do you mean by paying for 3 kids to go through Uni? Given you have suggested you are on a lower income I imagine your kids therefore qualified for near maximum grant. Plus they get a loan for tuition fees. Did they get any other financial support? So what did that leave you to be paying?

[Only asking here as it would be useful to see it in context as the definition of paying for your kids to go through Uni will mean very different things to different people]

If you’re under 35 and didn’t get the benefit of the 90’s and 00’s house price bubble then you’re pretty screwed unless you’re earning considerably more than 45k (as a single earner).

I am over 40[just] and bought my house, less than 2 years ago, on 22k gross

One way to rile up any STWer.

Punch ’em right in the financials.

Given you have suggested you are on a lower income

I’m on more than average

I am over 40[just] and bought my house, less than 2 years ago, on 22k gross

You’ve had a good opportunity to save a deposit though 😀
What % deposit did you pay?

Council housing subsidised ?

WTF –you show your ignorance and prejudice in one line !

FWIW– a council house will be paid for after 30 years, they are for long term not short, i lived in a CH built in 1933- nearly eighty years old, its tip top, has paid for itself two or three times over, and is still providing a much needed quality home for someone.

There is an ideological hatred of social housing for some, its one of the best ways to regulate and control rents/conditions– private sector has no interest in providing anything but a quick return.

once upon a time council housing was well built ….

for that reason alone i live in a 1950s ex council property.

You’ve had a good opportunity to save a deposit though
What % deposit did you pay?

We are reaching the limits of what I will discuss freely on the Internet but yes fair point 20%- pre crash I would have got away with 10% and it was post divorce [ no large equity from that as that house was only 2 years into a mortgage].
I said on another thread as well even at 100% mortgage – which i cannot get [ can anyone?] it would be cheaper than rent

Bikingcatastrophe – Member
And, as others have commented, why do people think it is right that someone who earns a bigger salary should pay a higher rate of tax?

Because;

trail_rat – Member
i dont earn 45k and im more than comfortable with my life…. more money is always nice but it would be excess.

Is essentially true; yes you can argue about the threshold where essential becomes luxury, but there come a point where you don’t need more money, but desire it. I think that it’s fundamentally fair that I share the ‘excess’ income that I have earned at a higher rate than the ‘essential’ income. That’s why.

@rudeboy. I stand by what I said, it’s massively subsidised. Don’t look at the build cost in the 1930’s look at the replacement cost today including land and you have to do the analysis using commercial rates of return. FWIW I am in favour of council and social housing, I think there should be more of it but it should definitely be more appropriately distributed.

I said on another thread as well even at 100% mortgage – which i cannot get [ can anyone?] it would be cheaper than rent

this.

alot of the time(but not always) buying a house is about realising that if you make sacrifices for a short period to save the deposit then things can be changed. .

if you can afford to rent you can afford to buy. you just need to save the deposit (with the caveat that it may not be what you want but any house owned is better than renting and burning your money)

i lived in a 1 bedroom shoe box spending very little – i even put all bar my singlespeed bikes in storage last year so i wasnt tempted to spend on bike bits. – its amazing what you can save in 2 years when your committed. How ever i do accept this is alot harder with kids in tow and it was a concious agreement between me and mrs T-r to do this now while it was an option rather than doing as we both want to do and take off with the money cycle touring again.

when i look around at folk i know moaning they cant afford a house i see them with iphones , massive tvs , sky sports and out drinking both nights every weekend. one mate admitted he spends 100 quid a night minimum each weekend.

he has a good time and i dont grudge it to him but it all adds up quite quickly to a house IF that is what you want

i could pick alot of holes in that generalised statement ewan but im not giving away any more about my personal financial affairs in here.

Wasn’t trying to be specific to anyone, no offense intended! 🙂

How rich you are is your own personal state of mind.

<thread closed>

Is essentially true; yes you can argue about the threshold where essential becomes luxury, but there come a point where you don’t need more money, but desire it. I think that it’s fundamentally fair that I share the ‘excess’ income that I have earned at a higher rate than the ‘essential’ income. That’s why.

So, a “communist” or state run system yes? Someone centrally defines what is the acceptable level of income and everything more than that is penalised strongly? Different people have a varying interpretations of what is luxury and what is excess. Still not a reason, I don’t think, that means it is fair that higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate. They are already paying a bigger share of the tax income through the higher earnings. Where does the threshold get drawn? What about my choices as to what I think I would like to spend my money on that I may not think of as a luxury? Maybe provide a mechanism where the altruistic can pay more tax if they think their level of income is excessive would be fairer.

jambalaya– the land ‘costs’ are the biggest, if the council own the land, what huge costs are you referring to.

Land costs are artificial constructs, designed to make big profits for speculators, they are obscene in many places, you can build a good quality house for £80,000 without land, and in bulk costs drop proportionately– as i said there are ideological issues with public housing, as along with many things that benefit ordinary people ahead of profiteers/ pirates

So, a “communist” or state run system yes?

Haha, you are Mitt Romney* and I claim my five pounds!

Seriously, really? Socially responsible = commy?

*many other right wing loons are available.

Socially responsible does not equal paying a higher proportion of tax. Not really sure where you manage to draw that narrow conclusion.

And no, I’m not Mitt Romney.

And communist states have a reputation for controlling what is acceptable for the natives including income, so not such a stretch, to make a point.

don’t think, that means it is fair that higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate. They are already paying a bigger share of the tax income through the higher earnings.

The net result of thinking it is fair to have unevenly shared wealth is that you end up thinking this is ok
and not having enough monmey to solve this

I fail to understand why anyone wants to justofy this or symapthise with the plight of the rich rather than the plight of the poor

tax the shit out of the self serving folk cos they aint giving it away and even withall this wealth/income many will still be trying their best to avoid tax

I bet the owner of that ^^^ earns at least £45K!

Ok, ok, I’ll leave it.

I fail to understand why someone thinks that a question about why it is fair to tax a higher earner a bigger proportion of their income is in any way justifying the plight of the super rich (implication of using a fanciful and fantastically expensive super yacht)?

So what level of income should be deemed “excessive” and should be taxed at a higher rate and what should that rate be? Sensible answers please and not just “politics of envy” answers.

Bikingcatastrophe – I fail to understand

This much is obvious.

I don’t think, that means it is fair that higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate

The country is desperate for more money, the more you have, the more you can afford to chip in.
One of my kids pays board based on what their income is, the other 2 don’t

Not fair? Lots of things aren’t [superficially] fair, get over it

Sensible answers please and not just “politics of envy” answers.

We tax the rich because they have more, we tax then because the poor have less we do it to make the world a fairer place [ even out the fact we are lucky[as is everyone rich at some point] to be born in the UK rather than sub sharan africa for example – that is not hard work by us it is just pure luck]. Ultimately, if we do it enough no one lives in slums, no one has unclean water, everyone has food, everyone has education BUT a few folk may have a slightly smaller or , god forbid, no superyacht and Mit Romney may need to pay as much tax as the cleaners he employs

If you dont agree it is because you accept unequal distribution of income and wealth and those pictures show you what that really means No one wants to justify that so of course you throw some insults about envy around as you know you have no way of justifying that as fair….obvioulsy dont let this inability change your view nad havea pop at me instead.

I fail to understand why someone thinks that a question about why it is fair to tax a higher earner a bigger proportion of their income is in any way justifying the plight of the super rich (implication of using a fanciful and fantastically expensive super yacht)?

PLIGHT- i dont think that word means what you think it means

Noun: A dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unfortunate situation: “the plight of poor children”.

Tell me what is their difficulty exactly not enough time on the earth to spend all their money? 😯

Are these not amongst the high earners you dont want us to tax more of have you changed your view about taxing them now ?

don’t think, that means it is fair that higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate. They are already paying a bigger share of the tax income through the higher earnings.

We could get rid of the 40% tax rate, but that would leave a shortfall in tax receipts, and further cuts will only take us so far. Is it fairer to increase the basic tax rate for everyone, or to have an additional tax on disposable income, which in the interests of simplifying things is defined as anything over £45k?

How many really high earners get their money because of their own personal productivity, compared to being in a position to exploit (emotive) manage the productivity of many others? Not that many I should imagine.

rudebwoy – Member
jambalaya– the land ‘costs’ are the biggest, if the council own the land, what huge costs are you referring to.

Land costs are artificial constructs, designed to make big profits for speculators, they are obscene in many places, you can build a good quality house for £80,000 without land, and in bulk costs drop proportionately– as i said there are ideological issues with public housing, as along with many things that benefit ordinary people ahead of profiteers/ pirates

That’s my point you are suggesting the council donate the land, ie give it away out of their stock when the land has a value. That’s a subsidy.

How are land prices designed ? Land has “obscene” value because it’s in demand, generally because it’s near employment ie wealth creation. The better the employment opportunity generally the higher the land & property prices.

Is it fairer to increase the basic tax rate for everyone, or to have an additional tax on disposable income, which in the interests of simplifying things is defined as anything over £45k?

If the tax take needs to go up, it’s in everyones benefit (we all benefited from the spend) so it’s only fair that we all contribute. Obviously, the rich will contribute more due to how percentages work.

Even fairer still, how about we just close tax loopholes so that people pay what they should? How about HRMC chase Vodephone? How about the ultra rich paying their share rather than hiding it all?

If the tax take needs to go up, it’s in everyones benefit (we all benefited from the spend) so it’s only fair that we all contribute.

That assumes everything else is fair, such as cleaners being paid a fair wage for their effort, instead of the lowest possible that their well paid bosses can get away with.

Obviously, the rich will contribute more due to how percentages work

You mean they contribute more if we ignore the percentage part of the percentage tax 😕

You are George osborne and I demand the right to beat you [ not in the way you like from public schooldays either]

You are not wrong re tax loopholes- then again given how Cameron dad made his money and how CMD got his inhereted wealth that sems unlikely

FWIW his dad was the owner /runner of one of the frist off shore tax avoidance/haven schemes so I doubt dave has a moral problem with them

My first 5 pager \o/

You lot would be brilliant down the pub.

so it’s only fair that we all contribute. Obviously, the rich will contribute more due to how percentages work.

obviously, and that’s what happens, but it becomes far more difficult to define fairness when paying x percent more means a wealthy person may have to go to Mexico instead of St Lucia for their jollies, while paying the same x percent extra may mean a poor man not being able to adequately feed and clothe his children. Sensationalist I know, but essentially, as you say, that’s how percentages work…

For what it’s worth, I’d advocate some kind of sine curve for taxation rather than arbitrary steps in income, and have the ‘dimensions’ of the curve (terminology? Sorry. Not a mathematician) decided by referendum. But I’m only a commie, what would I know.

STW pub meet earlier today !

Three hours of arguing over whose round it was and how best to divide the cost of said round, one hour of debating what to drink and then a fight breaks out over what tyres to get to the bar

If i own something and build on it , how is that a subsidy??? lambalaya, land values are inflated due to many things, agricultural land has little value until the magic word planning is added then it is valued at many times more, its still the same land, nobody has made it — its a construct, like fixing the market so you always win!

You mean they contribute more if we ignore the percentage part of the percentage tax

You are George osborne and I demand the right to beat you [ not in the way you like from public schooldays either]

Don’t know what you mean in the first part but I grant you the opportunity for the second 😀 (Even though I’ve never set foot in a public school and grew up in a council flat).

For what it’s worth, (and I’m a higher rate taxpayer by virtue of OT) I don’t always agree with JY, but I’d rather live in his ‘ideal world’ than that of Bikingcatastrophes’.

I don’t always agree with JY, but I’d rather live in his ‘ideal world’ than that of Bikingcatastrophes’.

And what world is that? To be fair, I am not sure you know enough about me to be in a position to define what sort of world is my ideal. But then again, this is the internet isn’t it so as you were. 🙂

If you dont agree it is because you accept unequal distribution of income and wealth and those pictures show you what that really means No one wants to justify that so of course you throw some insults about envy around as you know you have no way of justifying that as fair….obvioulsy dont let this inability change your view and have a pop at me instead.

Not sure where I am having a pop at you? But to answer your point with the one that was made to my post

Lots of things aren’t [superficially] fair, get over it

And those words are quite true. Life is not fair. And there will probably always be an unequal distribution of wealth. Any my argument is that £45k is not a staggering salary. Yes, there are a lot of people who have material wealth far beyond what they can use and it would be great if they could do something more altruistic than buy the next set of Louis Vuitton baggage for a day trip to Necker. And close down the obvious tax loopholes. But the tax system needs to find the balance of being progressive enough to raise the required funds without appearing too unfair to those that feel most threatened by it and who then try everything they can to move their moneys elsewhere and avoid paying any tax at all.

And slow hand clap to v8ninety for the fail to understand comment. Excellent. Still chuckling at such sparkling wit.

Lots of things aren’t [superficially] fair, get over it

so if it was your child starving to death you think this would be an adequate and fair response for me to deliver from my superyacht?
do you even have a moral compass?whilst shouting about how threatened i fell about the tax rate?

yes it would be nice if they would give up Louis stuff and the holiday but a quick look at reality shows they wont so we need to actually take it from them via taxation.