Higher IR's, Higher Taxes, Higher Prices....

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

150K will get you a lovely detached house with a garage and garden in many parts of the UK, and in many parts of Australia.

You can in the UK as well.

I have friends in who have lived and worked in Sydney for over 20 years.
£150k doesn't buy you much these days.

One has a small 2 bed flat on the headland between Freshwater and Manly beaches. The older properties are gradually being bought up by developers. The new properties now sell for over £1 million.

The other, who has a family. Despite earning a good wage by Australian levels. Now lives 15 miles in land from the coast. As housing is so expensive. Due to the price of land.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

And it starts at a hundred grand (sterling) rather than 35 so isn't an issue for the vast majority. .

I think that's the key thing....

I found this.

Which explains why people think Australian taxes are higher.

The brackets are different, and the headline rates seem to squeeze the middle classes more with lower allowances and the interim 30% rate which we don't have. Although against that, there's NI, so it's probably quite similar.


Taxable IncomeTax RateTax Amount Due$0 - $6,0000%$0$6,001 - $30,00015%15¢ for each $1 over $6,000$30,001 - $75,00030%$3,600 plus 30¢ for each $1 over $30,000$75,001 - $150,00040%$17,100 plus 40¢ for each $1 over $75,000$150,000 and over45%$47,100 plus 45¢ for each $1 over $150,000

Generali

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Why is is ok for you to pull someone up on their figures (and demand an answer when none is forthcoming):



Yet when I make what I felt was a valid point (that you're not comparing like for like with your figures), I get called a 'keyboard warrior' and I'm indulging in 'ad hominem' attack on you (whatever that means, I don't speak Latin, though I assume it's not something nice).

Charming. Perhaps you'd prefer it if we all just nod at whatever you post and agree that you're a genius?

I stand by what I posted. You're not comparing like for like, and if you can't be bothered looking up the correct figures, why bother to post anything? I didn't appreciate or deserve to be called a 'keyboard warrior', I certainly didn't put anything personal or offensive in my post.

Keyboard ninja was probably a little strong and I'm sorry for calling you that.

I get a little tired on this site of posting numbers and using a little intellect and being called for not posting a particular number another poster wants when they can't be bothered to do their own research.

Frankly, I think you come into the category of not being bothered to go through the numbers. It puts you in the majority however.

Really2

I think one thing Oz and the UK share in common with house prices is the land issue.

A lot of OZ is not great to build on due to climate (I think the coastal areas holds 90% of the population, may be wrong) a lot of the UK is not suitable to build on because of farming (which we need for the population)

So surly this tells us if land is at a premium it is fairy hard to have low house prices simply because of the constraint of land.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I think that's the key thing....

I found this.

Which explains why people think Australian taxes are higher.

The brackets are different, and the headline rates seem to squeeze the middle classes more with lower allowances and the interim 30% rate which we don't have. Although against that, there's NI, so it's probably quite similar.


Taxable IncomeTax RateTax Amount Due$0 - $6,0000%$0$6,001 - $30,00015%15¢ for each $1 over $6,000$30,001 - $75,00030%$3,600 plus 30¢ for each $1 over $30,000$75,001 - $150,00040%$17,100 plus 40¢ for each $1 over $75,000$150,000 and over45%$47,100 plus 45¢ for each $1 over $150,000

The thing to look at is Government spending not taxes IMO. History tells us that taxes tend towards Government spending rather than Government spending tending towards taxes, ie the deficit comes first followed by the tax rise.

The UK Government spends more than the Aussie Government so taxes will be higher ultimately.

Harry_Powell

Generali wrote: »

Keyboard ninja was probably a little strong and I'm sorry for calling you that.

I get a little tired on this site of posting numbers and using a little intellect and being called for not posting a particular number another poster wants when they can't be bothered to do their own research.

Frankly, I think you come into the category of not being bothered to go through the numbers. It puts you in the majority however.

Apology accepted for the keyboard warrior jibe. I usually supply the figures (and links where I found the figures from) when I post stuff that require them. Recent examples were in a thread where renting vs home ownership was being discussed. I copied in various average figures for the number of house moves (6) people make and the average cost of house moves (£10k+). All figures were backed up with links, and though people were surprised with the figures (myself included), no one disputed them.

Perhaps you're mistaking me with another poster, as again I feel I don't deserve to be lumped in with the 'majority who can't be bothered to do their own research'.

As far as 'calling you on your figures', I didn't once tell you to go away and find the figures - I merely mentioned that you weren't comparing like-for-like and suggested you should have used the UK figures from 2005 in order to compare correctly. I then provided the UK figures for 2005.

Generali

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Apology accepted for the keyboard warrior jibe. I usually supply the figures (and links where I found the figures from) when I post stuff that require them. Recent examples were in a thread where renting vs home ownership was being discussed. I copied in various average figures for the number of house moves (6) people make and the average cost of house moves (£10k+). All figures were backed up with links, and though people were surprised with the figures (myself included), no one disputed them.

Perhaps you're mistaking me with another poster, as again I feel I don't deserve to be lumped in with the 'majority who can't be bothered to do their own research'.

As far as 'calling you on your figures', I didn't once tell you to go away and find the figures - I merely mentioned that you weren't comparing like-for-like and suggested you should have used the UK figures from 2005 in order to compare correctly. I then provided the UK figures for 2005.

Good.

Perhaps we should let it lie on the basis that one can't have too many friends and too few enemies!

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

I think one thing Oz and the UK share in common with house prices is the land issue.

A lot of OZ is not great to build on due to climate (I think the coastal areas holds 90% of the population, may be wrong) a lot of the UK is not suitable to build on because of farming (which we need for the population)

So surly this tells us if land is at a premium it is fairy hard to have low house prices simply because of the constraint of land.

The problem with Aus seems to be a lack of skilled labour, IMO at least.

A house is worth the sum of three things:

Value of land + cost of building + ability to build

in Aus, the final thing is constrained by a lack of builders. Land is very cheap. The other thing that makes Aussie houses expensive is that Aussies all want to live in massive houses on big plots. My in-laws' place must be 2,500 sq ft and it's built on a quarter acre of land. By modern standards over here it's not that big.

Harry_Powell

Generali wrote: »

Good.

Perhaps we should let it lie on the basis that one can't have too many friends and too few enemies!

No problem gen. I take great pains on here not to come across as antagonistic or argumentative and so was a bit taken aback when I read your responses. No hard feelings pal.

Generali

Harry_Powell wrote: »

No problem gen. I take great pains on here not to come across as antagonistic or argumentative and so was a bit taken aback when I read your responses.

I had a bit of bad news today so am a bit prickly. It shouldn't have come across but it did.

Harry_Powell wrote: »

No hard feelings pal.

Mate is the accepted term in these parts but pal suits me just as well.