- Tax exemption for castle owners called for by men who own castles : Ukip content
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 ****.
Agree 100%, although….
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.
If there’s no one queuing up to buy them then they’ll have to lower the price, just the same as everyone else. Why should a house be kept at an artificially high price just because it’s of interest or is stately?Posted 4 years agothestabiliserMember
I know, why don’t the owners of these national treaures throw open their doors to a new source of revenue – housing the overspill from the council estates in their piles and using the rental revenue to maintain them?
It’s beautiful, I can see it now…
‘Jayden, CHardonnay we is retirin’ to da library for aperafahkinteefs, innit’Posted 4 years ago
‘Quite right, Jizzelda dahhling, Smithers will be calling us through for our turkey dinosaurs, presently.’jambalayaMember
@chest and @klunk
There is a fundamental difference between someone owning a larger property than they need and someone who is living in one being fully/partially paid for by the state whilst there are families needing a bigger property who cannot be found one or that property costing the local authority a very high rent
We have a social housing crises as too many have been sold off and far too few have been built.Posted 4 years agocinnamon_girlSubscriber
The thought of any historically and/or architecturally important homes being left to crumble appals me. I don’t believe that every inhabitant is rolling in dosh and would like to see a middle ground where each one is looked at and treated accordingly.
These homes and their land are very much part of the British landscape and can enhance all our lives even from just passing by when out walking.
Whilst I frequently agree with Binners on political issues I do believe that we need to open our minds on this topic.Posted 4 years agomeftyMember
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.
This is how it often works with the added ingredient of the National Trust.
EDIT: Although the whole listings system is a bit of a mess, I own a listed building which means I have to get permission for any alteration from the point it was listed. This bizarrely means that restoring previous features, for instance installing a wood burner, which were removed pre-listing requires permission. In some cases some pretty awful 70s additions are being protected because they happened pre-listing.Posted 4 years agoMoreCashThanDashSubscriber
I rarely agree with jambalaya but his last post makes a valid point I can agree with working in this area.
I also think we need to take a slightly more pragmatic approach to preserving listed buildings, as they seem to in some European countries. Far better to keep a building sound and in use and 80% historically accurate, rather than insist on extortionate perfection and see it crumble to the ground.
Obviously the 20% you allow them to change will be open to some argument!Posted 4 years ago
jambalaya – Member
@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.
It’s not “the countryside”, it’s a whacking great house. Don’t try and play the country v city card, apart from being feeble it’s just factually wrong, not all listed buildings are in the countryside.
This isn’t about city vs country, it’s about giving a tax break to someone who lives in a massive house, while taking money away from someone who can’t afford their rent.Posted 4 years agoJunkyardMember
someone who is living in one being fully/partially paid for by the state whilst there are families needing a bigger property who cannot be found one
The facts are the waiting lists are for those in large houses to get into smaller houses not the other way round.
As per your view and facts are opposites 🙄
Oh hold on this time you have excelled yourself and are contradicting your earlier posts
JY we’ve been round the bedroom tax before, there aren’t enough small (1 and 2 bed) flats available
A new high [ or low depending on view I guess] for you
Still failing the Turing test I am afraid.Posted 4 years ago
You must be trolling on here as no one can be this daft can they ?MSPSubscriber
The thought of any historically and/or architecturally important homes being left to crumble appals me.
I couldn’t give a flying **** about them, I want the state to build for the future, not try and preserve some pastiche false utopia of the past that never really existed anyway.Posted 4 years agomrmonkfingerMember
it’s about giving a tax break to someone who lives in a massive house,
Well, the original story seems to be…
UKIP has pledged to cut the tax bills of the owners of listed buildings
1) not necessarily the occupant
2) not necessarily large, or small, or even a medium sort of size
Just saying, like.Posted 4 years ago
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
1) I don’t know where the discussion of property taxes comes from because it’s not in the OP
2) the market has a solution for this and the state doesn’t need to interfere: the price of the £2m house will drop until someone who wants to buy it does
3) the market has a solution for this and the state doesn’t need to interfere: if a property is listed and maintenance obligations, the market value will fall to reflect those ongoing costs
how is it that all the “socialists” want the market to fix this (supposed) problem and the marketeers want more state intervention?Posted 4 years ago
konabunny – Member
how is it that all the “socialists” want the market to fix this
You seem to be confused… Socialists aren’t inherently against market forces, they’re just against letting the market run the world to the detriment of the people that it depends 100% on to exist.
Meanwhile, capitalists tend to want a free market when it suits them but state support when they demand it, for them and their mates.Posted 4 years agopedroballSubscriber
the thing is that its likely they would apply the mansion tax using the existing framework for homes held through companies, which have an annual tax charge (annual tax on enveloped dwellings). That has reliefs if the house is open to the public, so I think there are reliefs already likely available to cover the right situations. The UKIP proposals are a step further than this…
I think the sporting rights in Scotland is already addressed by changes coming in next year, where there’s a substantial amount of sporting activities going on – the single farm payment then won’t be available.Posted 4 years ago
you even pointed out yourself that socialists are happy to let the market deal with some problems like you thought it was a clever observation
No, you frightful pleb, I was pointing out the stupidity of JulianA calling people advocating market solutions socialists and the remarkable turnaround of this forum’s supposed free market fans in advocating state intervention. Now if you’ll excuse me I have a moat to excavate at public expense.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Tax exemption for castle owners called for by men who own castles : Ukip content’ is closed to new replies.