T 42 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'd be delighted to see them part with some of that wealth. Me too. But I have to wonder about a wealth tax based on something that is very likely not to belong to the person living there. Is someone in London who owes £2 million on his mortgage really more wealthy that someone in Yorkshire who owns a £1.5 million house outright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Can you define "fair"? Generally when you ask it's sufficient money so that anyone earning more than me, only gets as much as me. aka the politics of envy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Id like to suggest that most pensioners who are sat on "nest eggs" and lets face it, they arent a huge percentage of people, do so, because we are living longer and they are afraid of how little they may have later in life. The main hoarders of cash, are the Corporates. And they have them stuck in tax havens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Me too. But I have to wonder about a wealth tax based on something that is very likely not to belong to the person living there. Is someone in London who owes £2 million on his mortgage really more wealthy that someone in Yorkshire who owns a £1.5 million house outright? They are not necessarily more wealthy but maybe wealth is the wrong way to think about it because as you have illustrated it is very, very difficult to determine. There are other alternatives, e.g. land tax other have mentioned on the thread but even then like you say does holding a mortgage on a property represent real wealth? Income, rental income, potential rental income are the things to tax rather than trying to target apparent wealth - kind of why the mansion tax doesn't seem that convincing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Id like to suggest that most pensioners who are sat on "nest eggs" and lets face it, they arent a huge percentage of people, do so, because we are living longer and they are afraid of how little they may have later in life. The main hoarders of cash, are the Corporates. And they have them stuck in tax havens. You can't ignore the generation imbalance because you feel sorry for pensioners who have enjoyed huge economic advantages compared to today's youngsters. But yes, targeted taxes for the corporates too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 You can't ignore the generation imbalance because you feel sorry for pensioners who have enjoyed huge economic advantages compared to today's youngsters. But yes, targeted taxes for the corporates too. I'm one of the first baby boomers, born the year after the end of WWII. I was fortunate because I was an only child, but many of my peers didn't have a great start, and few of us inherited anything. Many of my age group worked from the age of 15 and most didn't have the option of university; we lived with parents or 'in rooms' when first married; and if we weren't in one of the occupations favoured by the trade unions, saw our incomes shrink in real terms. We also lived through soaring interest rates and galloping inflation but most of us managed to scrape by and hang on to our homes. We'd been brought up understanding thrift and spending priorities. Although we managed to retire at 60/65 we had to pay many more years of NI contributions to get a pension, which won't be increased when the new flat rate one is introduced. So I'd say its swings and roundabouts, and our 'little nest eggs' and our homes are now being taken in ever growing numbers to pay for health care, which for the elderly is rebranded as 'care' so we can be charged for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'm one of the first baby boomers, born the year after the end of WWII. I was fortunate because I was an only child, but many of my peers didn't have a great start, and few of us inherited anything. Many of my age group worked from the age of 15 and most didn't have the option of university; we lived with parents or 'in rooms' when first married; and if we weren't in one of the occupations favoured by the trade unions, saw our incomes shrink in real terms. We also lived through soaring interest rates and galloping inflation but most of us managed to scrape by and hang on to our homes. We'd been brought up understanding thrift and spending priorities. Although we managed to retire at 60/65 we had to pay many more years of NI contributions to get a pension, which won't be increased when the new flat rate one is introduced. So I'd say its swings and roundabouts, and our 'little nest eggs' and our homes are now being taken in ever growing numbers to pay for health care, which for the elderly is rebranded as 'care' so we can be charged for it. If we take the example of a land tax based on potential rental income then less well-off pensioners wouldn't be impacted. In fact they might benefit from economic resources being used to fuller potential. I'm all for fairer taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 I thought Tony Blair had quite a few, but there again I always thought he caused the credit crunch anyhow. . Then let him pay up too! Mind you I don't think his number of houses comes any where near Smarmy Dave's 30+, and atleast Blair was a successful (if you're a Thatcherite) PM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 successful at what? cosying up with the unions? bleading the public purse dry with his vanity projects? getting the country involved in an illegal war? travelling the globe ensuring a prosperous future from him and his silly grinning tart of a wife? Allowing himself and his family to be caught up in fraud scandals? Yeah, very successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 successful at what? cosying up with the unions? bleading the public purse dry with his vanity projects? getting the country involved in an illegal war? travelling the globe ensuring a prosperous future from him and his silly grinning tart of a wife? Allowing himself and his family to be caught up in fraud scandals? Yeah, very successful. Calm down dear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.