Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
How Bloody Much?!
Comments
-
The most recent research report on ‘Minimum Income Standards’ is here:
http://www.minimumincomestandard.org/downloads/2012_launch/mis_report_2012.pdf
It's a fascinating idea and certainly much better than the ridiculous idea that poverty can be measured as 60% of median income.
I guess the debate could be framed in terms of, should a person who won't work receive the minimum income standard at the expense of those that do work?0 -
Many years ago it was quite common for councils to levy a rent on council houses and then add an extra levy depending on how many employed people lived there. Nowadays they are charging a higher rent by assuming full occupancy and giving benefits based on under-occupation. Same difference really its still taxation.
You can hair split that these are "not taxes" but in reality they have the same effect to reduce disposable income. They are stealth taxes whatever you call them. a
I am not saying that New Labour did not do stealth taxes but the idea that they are peculiar to just them is looking through blue tinted spectacles.
One of the biggest stealth taxes we have ever had has been the National Lottery introduced by John Major. Another is inflation that erodes savings and income, which as I recall has reached double digits under past governments in my lifetime although never under New Labour.
The coalition has devalued the value of most index linked pensions by allowing the use of CPI rather than RPI which is a stealth tax on many pensions now and in the future. In contrast, student debts are still index linked to RPI as are rail fares and utility bills. Additionally, the reductions being imposed on Councils by the Coalition ( by capping budgets) are leading to loads of stealth taxes via increases in parking charges, fees, refuse collection charges etc). Then you have the Coalition's green tax on all of our utility bills.
Whether any of these stealth taxes should have been levied is a separate issue. But they are all a means of covertly raising money for the Treasury or ways of saving the Treasury money.
The lottery is not a stealth tax, the act of buying a lottery ticket is deliberate, discretionary spending. It could only possibly be described as a tax if it was compulsory to play. By your logic premium bonds are a stealth tax as well!
The "bedroom tax" is also not a tax and anyone calling it a tax is just buying in to labour's spin. Reducing benefits is not a tax. Furthermore, what is currently going on is not even reducing benefits as it is simply requiring people to move house - unless they refuse, they will continue, in substance, to receive the same net amount because their rent will reduce accordingly.
By your logic we should describe that rent reduction as a "windfall".0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »The lottery is not a stealth tax, the act of buying a lottery ticket is deliberate, discretionary spending. It could only possibly be described as a tax if it was compulsory to play. By your logic premium bonds are a stealth tax as well!
The "bedroom tax" is also not a tax and anyone calling it a tax is just buying in to labour's spin. Reducing benefits is not a tax. Furthermore, what is currently going on is not even reducing benefits as it is simply requiring people to move house - unless they refuse, they will continue, in substance, to receive the same net amount because their rent will reduce accordingly.
By your logic we should describe that rent reduction as a "windfall".
Just out of interest, what if there is nowhere to move to (e.g. lack of one bedroom properties)?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »The lottery is not a stealth tax, the act of buying a lottery ticket is deliberate, discretionary spending.
You are right it is discretionary, like a some real taxes to some people.;)
If the whole of the lottery was distributed in prizes, allowing for strict operational costs, then I would agree with you. The fact that a lot of the funds are used to replace, or make up for lack of government spend/shortfall is IMO a form of soft tax.
People buy a lot of discretion things with a hard tax or duty on them."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »You are right it is discretionary, like a some real taxes to some people.;)
If the whole of the lottery was distributed in prizes, allowing for strict operational costs, then I would agree with you. The fact that a lot of the funds are used to replace, or make up for lack of government spend/shortfall is IMO a form of soft tax.
People buy a lot of discretion things with a hard tax or duty on them.
Tax is money taken by the Government under threat of imprisonment.
It's why duty on cigarettes is a tax despite you not having to pay it if you don't smoke whereas the money for 'good causes' from the lottery isn't a tax.
IMHO.0 -
Just out of interest, what if there is nowhere to move to (e.g. lack of one bedroom properties)?
Can people not share houses - like my partner does in private, unsubsidised housing - or like I've done in my own "owner-occupied" houses, which have helped pay off my mortgages?
Why should people have a property all to themselves, what a luxury? It's a luxury that people not on benefits don't have.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »You are right it is discretionary, like a some real taxes to some people.;)
If the whole of the lottery was distributed in prizes, allowing for strict operational costs, then I would agree with you. The fact that a lot of the funds are used to replace, or make up for lack of government spend/shortfall is IMO a form of soft tax.
People buy a lot of discretion things with a hard tax or duty on them.
Isn't it used, though, for things like my local park, which is of benefit to only the inhabitants of a small market town? Lottery money has restored it to its Victorian splendour which allows enjoyment to a group of people. There would be an outcry, however, if money were to come from the Government or the Council for this. There are more pressing things to use Council Taxes for.0 -
Dont you think its up to governments to make sure there are enough jobs for everybody before people on benefits are classed as scroungers ?
And, if the people that did work were allowed to keep more of there hard earn t cash instead of most of it being taken away by taxes you would get the benefit payments right down to practically nothing. Its successive governments that have been living beyond this country's means thats created this situation, and the reason why is because the wealthy elite are still on an ego trip like the old days when we were a superpower . Lets face it, why should,nt they keep spend spend spending OUR tax money,its not hurting them at all and its feeding there ego,s on the world stage................ just my view of it all0 -
Jennifer_Jane wrote: »Can people not share houses - like my partner does in private, unsubsidised housing - or like I've done in my own "owner-occupied" houses, which have helped pay off my mortgages?
Why should people have a property all to themselves, what a luxury? It's a luxury that people not on benefits don't have.
Even better
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 346K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.1K Spending & Discounts
- 238.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 613.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.5K Life & Family
- 251.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards