Yet people will still vote for them…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11281300/Ukip-announce-mansion-tax-break-for-historic-home-owners.html

In my work capacity I was talking to a UKiPer last week. Not a stupid man,not someone I would want to spend time with; runs a quite successful small business. The utter crap that he was spouting was just depressing, get past the immigrant bit and he was clueless as to what they actually stand for.

Lord we could be in a mess come the next election.

The established parties are so much better at this kind of corruption. Needs a bit of refinement.

Why do you give these twunts the oxygen of publicity?

Why do you give these twunts the oxygen of publicity?

well they’re getting a load of free publicity on immigration (big vote winner) by all the mass media so a bit of negative attention (from the political powerhouse that is STW towers) on the rest of their bobbins ideas is no bad thing I reckon.

Whilst in no way supporting UKIP, there is some merit in a tax break (e.g. alleviation of VAT) for restoration/repairs to listed properties.

They’re listed because they’re deemed by the state to be of historical/architectural significance and repairs have to be done in a certain manner, and that manner is often not the cheapest way. So, the state ‘chipping in’ towards those costs seems fair. And, importantly, not all listed buildings are mansions…

“Nigel Farage’s party has promised to exempt historic buildings from VAT at 20 per cent on their building work, in a move that could save wealthy owners of historic mansions and castles hundreds of thousands of pounds. It would be replaced with a rate of 5 per cent.”

Now, I dont like the UKIP party but I do think our heritage needs to be protected. I think there is a difference between giving a multi millionaire a tax break and helping to preserve building for next generations.

I think this could be more effectively applied where the owner is also part of the buildings heritage. I’m sure that this heritage brings lots of tourism in to the uk.

To be clear, we are not talking about millionaires in mock Georgian mansions.

According to local papers/village newsletters It seems that round here (Northants) many residents of the sleepy villages and market towns which are normally tory strongholds will be supporting UKIP on the basis of their proposal to scrap HS2.

Its become a single issue election for many and immigration doesn’t seem to be the issue. Deluding themselves if they think UKIP actually would scrap HS2 though.

Worth remembering that it was only the evil Tories who made castle alteration works taxable as recently as 2012 😉

An acquaintance of mine is a UKIP member, (can’t really call him a friend now 😀 ) and last time I saw him he was full of the fact that they could be the minor partner in a coalition come May next year.

It did make me wonder if Labour and the Tories would form a grand coalition rather than having to deal with these toe rags.

It did make me wonder if Labour and the Tories would form a grand coalition rather than having to deal with these toe rags.

Deep down the tories will be loving it, a far right party getting loads of media attention allows them to move their own policies further to the right with barely any exposure.

Perish the thought that the party of government should be implementing policies subsidising rich landowners like this?

On Friday the government announced it would raise the subsidy it provides for grouse moors from £30 per hectare to £56. Yes, you read that right: the British government subsidises grouse moors, which are owned by 1% of the 1% and used by people who are scarcely less rich.

Monbiot has been on this for a while.

Breaking the Silence

I don’t know if this particular policy is good or bad but we will be getting loads of cockwombles making desicion because genuine concerns about immigration have been ignored or ridiculed by the more mainstream politicians who are probably better at the administration of a country but know **** all about life in a shit northern town.

So, the state ‘chipping in’ towards those costs seems fair. And, importantly, not all listed buildings are mansions…

Other houses are available, if you cannot afford the upkeep on your house, move to a cheaper property. Alternatively how about if you want part public help with your costs accepting Part public ownership of your property seems fair

Other houses are available, if you cannot afford the upkeep on your house, move to a cheaper property.

Nail on head. If you live in a caaaaaaahncil haaaaaaaarse with a spare bedroom you’re a parasite and a drain on the taxpayer. Get yourself to a smaller property, you leech!! Or pay the price!!!!

But If you live in an effing huge stately home, surrounded by all your land. Neither of which you can afford (yet you’ve still no plan on doing anything as frightful as working for a living) but you believe you’ve some kind of god-given entitlement too, then its only fair that the taxpayers of the nation should be subsidising you?

😆 Binners will you marry me 😆 that is so perfect.

We all know poor people can’t cook a daft rich women told us last week.

Many of these houses are family homes held for generations, the upkeep is very high. The money spent on upkeep is VAT-able and owners of these sorts of houses already pay plenty of taxes that way

binners you’ve spun a typical yarn from facts of owning a large family home into the idle rich. Many of these big places the land is farmed and the owners work on/let the farm land. See my point above the state isn’t subsidising them. If you want all these properties owned by foreigners who visit once or twice a year and pay virtually no taxes then go ahead. Your point on grouse moors is similar. Without these grants the land will just turn into commercial forests with non local spieces planted and then the land destroyed ecologically. Grouse moors provide local jobs and maintain historic skills. This provides the government with taxes. Do you not think that the government provides tax breaks to other businesses including in cities in the North, of course it does.

By the way the reason so many historic buildings (chateaus etc) in France are so derelict is the French have no tax exemptions for them, the owners cannot afford to maintain them so they rot. A lot of the decent ones (with vinyards) are now owned by the Chineese, the houses are locked up and unused.

Nail on head. If you live in a caaaaaaahncil haaaaaaaarse with a spare bedroom you’re a parasite and a drain on the taxpayer. Get yourself to a smaller property, you leech!! Or pay the price!!!!

To be fair UKIP also oppose the bedroom tax.

Binners, the problem with the Monbiotised version of the truth about ‘grouse moor subsidy’ is that it’s false

The CAP payments for farming on moorland have increased from £30 to £56 per Ha

It’s got nothing to do with grouse shooting – it’s also paid to moorland farmers without grouse shooting on their land, so it’s completley inaccurate to say it’s got anything to do with subsidising grouse shooting, because there is also the ‘active farmer’ criteria that limits payments to landowners unless the land is used for farming, so a moor that was used just for shooting would not get the subsidy

Regardless, its under EU rules anyway, what we actually see is re-balancing of subsidies from intensive lowland arable & grassland to upland farming areas, not just grouse moors.

Oh do shut up Jambalya ever heard of the single farm payment, people paying a grand a day to shoot pheasants fed to much to fly etc etc

Yes Binners may be going over the top but so are you, the only poor land owners I know are hill farmers in Wales not some Laird in a castle. Poor is when you are going to a food bank not when you cant afford a new Range Rover.

Wow I am really in a shitty mood today.

Many of these houses are family homes held for generations, the upkeep is very high

Why the **** do Lord and Lady Huffington-Toss think that saying ‘well its been in the family since 1638’ gives them blanket exemption from the laws of economics? And justification for the rest of us (who don’t live in Effing huge houses, with vast amounts of land) paying their way for them.

You can’t afford it? Sell it! And move to somewhere you can afford! Like everybody else has too!

You’re living beyond your means. A lifestyle you can’t afford! Remember Dave lecturing us on a ‘Culture of Entitlement’. Well this is it personified!! Only a pathetic legacy of deference makes this kind of thing remotely defensable, when it clearly isn’t!

Trust me any “mansion tax” will be a tax primarily on London and the South East and will be nothing to do with mansions, it will be a tax on flats in central London and 4 bedroom family houses in the suburbs (which already pay significant amounts of stamp duty not least after recent changes), it will have numerous unintended consequences which will hurt the middle and working classes particularly.

binners you’ve spun a typical yarn from facts of owning a large family home into the idle rich. Many of these big places the land is farmed and the owners work on/let the farm land. See my point above the state isn’t subsidising them. If you want all these properties owned by foreigners who visit once or twice a year and pay virtually no taxes then go ahead. Your point on grouse moors is similar. Without these grants the land will just turn into commercial forests with non local spieces planted and then the land destroyed ecologically. Grouse moors provide local jobs and maintain historic skills. This provides the government with taxes. Do you not think that the government provides tax breaks to other businesses including in cities in the North, of course it does.

And, many, many listed building, like I said, are not mansions, they’re very ‘ordinary’ properties.

Anyway don’t be coming round here with your explanations that the arguments around this, like many areas of taxation and subsidy, are actually quite nuanced. Rich people are bad; hasn’t Binners taught you anything?

And for the record, I think the Mansion Tax is just the next Fox Hunting debate. An utterly pointless waste of everyones time, which is purely symbolic in an equally pathetic ‘look at us, we’re waging class war on your behalf comrades!’ way, and will make no difference whatsoever to the truly stinking rich, who have probably already structured their ‘ownership’ so they’ll never have to pay it anyway. The same way as they all still go fox hunting

Though if you could go into some more detail about how it’ll impact the woking classes, I’m all ears…..

Many of these houses are family homes held for generations, the upkeep is very high.

they should move into a house they can afford, then. the market will depress the value of the property to reflect the statutory maintenance obligations and someone that can afford the upkeep will buy it.

owners of these sorts of houses already pay plenty of taxes that way

because, unbelievably, in a fair and equitable tax system, tax liabilities are based on ability to pay. Or, in case you don’t understand, those who have more contribute more,

I’d be all in favour of a tax break if the houses qualifying for and taking advantage of it are opened to the public. after all, if they’re part of the heritage I’m supprting, I should get to have a look.

For info
This

jambalaya – Member

and this

Trust me

are generally mutually exclusive

Your point on grouse moors is similar. Without these grants the land will just turn into commercial forests with non local spieces planted and then the land destroyed ecologically. Grouse moors provide local jobs and maintain historic skills. This provides the government with taxes.

Perhaps you should check in with other ways of turning a profit from the land? Many communities, landowners and trusts are seeing returns in alternatives. Interesting that so many don’t just forest the land.
These jobs you speak of. I had a run in with local stalkers when I was leading the outdoor centre. They claimed that they were earning £300 per day, and employing two people for the season. I looked back down the valley at the outdoor centre that was earning £5k a day and employing 17 staff permanently, who rented local houses. and I wondered about that jobs argument.
Another day we had a great conversation with the farmer, rather than his sub contract stalkers from Northumbria, who was enquiring about our new hydro schemes at one of the other centres. The boss happened to have the payment statement with him, which the farmer was mighty impressed by the figures, and suggested that money on top of his farming income and stalking fees would be a nice earner each year. Our boss had to point out that it was a monthly statement of income, not yearly. Rural economy revolution time.
Then we have the rural skills argument. Yes, there are important skills, but look at organisations such as John Muir Trust – the manage land very differently, manage to make it pay and keep the rural skills jobs – arguably more with wildlife guides, Rangers, foresters etc.
Grouse moors and the Scottish landscape as is currently is not really that historic, or enough of a ‘natural’ landscape for many of us. Don’t get too hooked up on grouse moors and deer ‘forests’ being wonderful, diverse habitats.

Personally, I would grant more micro hydro schemes, more planning for small developments. I would shoot 90% of the deer, plant vast new, connected forests of various kinds, and work hard to manage and re-introduce as many of the ‘big ticket’ wild life as I could – and the supporting species. Then get the tourists in.

I’m not the only one. See the plans for the great Trossachs forest, and how that is slowly reaching out to connect Lomond and Trossachs with Cairngorm NP. See how we are quietly allowing beaver back into the wild. How there are plans for Lynx release, possibly wild cattle in the forest, and to get rid of miles and miles of fencing. There are many who now see the money that wildlife and recreation tourism brings – and are acting on it in spite of the landed gentry claiming to be guardians of the land and having everyone’s best interests at heart.

Yes grouse moors/deer forests/sheep farming works in a fashion, but it is not the only way, and I refute the claim that they should recieve such generous tax breaks and subsidies.

[video]http://vimeo.com/64136183[/video]

interesting post!

Well said Matt!

There are some socialist idiots spouting the politics of envy on this thread.

Nah, they are just useless twunts. 😉

Can you talk us through why objecting to taxpayers subsidising the rich is ‘the Politics of Envy’ please? Because normally when people spout that stupid, lazy phrase it’s when they haven’t actually got an argument.

A socialist idiot

Why would I be envious of someone who has a big house but can’t afford the upkeep so lets it get run down? I’d prefer to live in a smaller house that’s not a dump.

Can you talk us through why objecting to taxpayers subsidising the rich is ‘the Politics of Envy’ please?

pretty sure he’s taking the piss, surely no one can use that phrase with a straight face

it will have numerous unintended consequences which will hurt the middle and working classes particularly

Form readign your posts it is obvious this is who you care deeply about:roll:

and who could disagree that taxing the rich will harm the poor….an excellent well made point.

There are some socialist idiots spouting the politics of envy on this thread.

Except you want the state/all of us to subsidise someone to live in a house/castle/mansion they cannot afford and the socialists want the market to force them to move and sell

Apart from that minor flaw in your argument its an excellent well made point.
As binners notes its just a lazy insult as you have no means of justifying it. Its an exercise in defend the indefensible

Lets punish the poor for an extra bedroom when there is no other suitable housing and fund the east wing for the wealthy.

Overall on a human level you feel sorry for folk who have owned an estate for generations and now find themselves unable to afford it. However my compassion and sympathy does not extend to subsidising them to live in luxury whilst others go to the food bank to eat. Forgive my “envy” will you 🙄

I’ve nothing against people owning a bigger house than me, in principal, I just don’t want to subsidise it while being told we have to cut benefits and we’re all in it together. I don’t think that’s the politics of envy, that’s the politics of not being a ****.

But it’s a wee bit more complicated than that, because of this:

nickc – Member

Other houses are available, if you cannot afford the upkeep on your house, move to a cheaper property.

Yeah but… There’s not really a huge queue of rich people lining up to buy mouldering listed buildings in the middle of nowhere. So if you want to actually preserve the building, in some cases the best way to do it really will be to leave the current occupier in it and help them out with the costs.

Maybe there’s a way to strike a balance… You can receive a tax break on your castle, as long as you guarantee a decent level of public access to the building and grounds.

@matt, we both want the same thing and there are many different ways of contributing to makig it happen, I do think the changes to taxation being muted in Scotland will prove counterproductive.

What I would say is that putting more things under government/local authority control is not the way. We’ve all witnessed what is happening to The Dark Peak when some CYA numpty is put in charge of “maintenance”

@Northwind, there you make the point about cuts in benefits and services, someone will always say these are more important and cut the resources available to the countryside.

Property taxes will have unintended consequences. They change behvaiour, why buy a £2m house if you are going to pay so much extra tax, just buy a £1m house and 2 investment properties if not more, or spend that money abroad. If you do buy an expensive property that’s more money going to the government instead of being spent in the economy, I really don’t think the government needs even more money it cannot manage what it has properly.

JY we’ve been round the bedroom tax before, there aren’t enough small (1 and 2 bed) flats available. Our social housing stock has been depleted and needs to be rebuilt. The bedroom tax was the wrong solution to a real problem, too many people living in rented properties which are larger than they need.