Labour plans and house prices

Graham_Devon

Innys1 wrote: »

The difference in your example above is take home pay above is ringfenced, until it is used to purchase something else. When it is used to buy the computer game, only then is the 20% VAT levied.

What's being proposed is, say, net rental income of £60 (after 40% tax) is then taxed again before it can be used to purchase something else. To me, that's something totally different.

Looking at this another way, part of the reason your property is worth what it is in the first place is due to taxpayer cash going into the housing system.

£26bn of taxpayer cash goes into the housing system every year via housing benefits. Landlords (maybe not you) directly gain from this.

We need to pay for all these things somehow. It can't all be gravy for homeowners all the time.

There are plenty of "taxed twice" scenario. I pay for car tax out of taxed income. I pay more or less dependent on the car I own. What car I own, and therefore how much tax I pay is up to me. Same goes for houses.

Innys1

cells wrote: »

Ok lets assume its 50,000 such homes are rented. I find that difficult to believe but lets go woth It. That is 0.5% of the rental stock hardly a large number.

as for the arguments of not taxing capital I find that quite absurd. Why should income taxes make up virtually all taxes. It would be fair to have oerhaos 20% of taxes on capital and 80% on income but not tje current situation which is closer to 0% and 100%

What does that sentence say because it makes no sense to me.

Are you saying there should be more than just Income Tax? If so, there already are - VAT, Fuel Duty, Inheritance Tax and...........guess what..........Capital Gains Tax.

So, are you saying Capital Gains should be taxed twice? Once during the life of a £2m property and again when it is sold?

Innys1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Looking at this another way, part of the reason your property is worth what it is in the first place is due to taxpayer cash going into the housing system.

£26bn of taxpayer cash goes into the housing system every year via housing benefits. Landlords (maybe not you) directly gain from this.

We need to pay for all these things somehow. It can't all be gravy for homeowners all the time.

There are plenty of "taxed twice" scenario. I pay for car tax out of taxed income. I pay more or less dependent on the car I own. What car I own, and therefore how much tax I pay is up to me. Same goes for houses.

You do know the £26bn figure you quoted above is paid for a reason, don't you? If landlords weren't paid HB, where would all these tenants live?

Or are you suggesting this tax is some mechanism to claw back part of the £26bn? Well, odds are, tenants in £2m properties are unlikely to be claiming HB anyway and, ironically, they will be the ones who end up picking up the tab.

The taxed twice scenario you have quoted misses the point I made. Your taxed income is taxed just once before you receive it (PAYE and NI are the same thing - anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded). Once you get this income you can decide what do to with it and, who knows, may choose to spend it on something totally tax free - VAT exempt goods, for example.

If this tax is introduced, rental income on the affected properties will be taxed twice before the landlord receives it - unless they pass the cost on to their tenants (which they surely will do).

As an aside, I've since found out that my house is probably worth closer to £1.6m so I'll be unaffected. I still think it's wrong, though.

Cyberman60

It won't work.... LOL.... but virtually nothing Labour does works, so no change there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2768814/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Ed-s-mansion-tax-isn-t-just-vindictive-s-wildly-impractical-knows-it.html

chewmylegoff

padington wrote: »

The proposed tax looks like it's only 1% tax over 2 million a year. So a 2k property pays nothing & a 2.5k property pays 5k a year.
This 2 million threshold will also be increased by the rate of 'inflation' every year so there is no slippage and the money only paid in your lifetime if you can afford it.

I think it's a pretty good way of paying back the national debt myself. It's quite easy to police and it's proportionally fair.

Also I doubt it will result in homes split into flats because the tax will be served on your entire property portfolio, regardless of how it is split up.

I guess it's possible this will push up rent for tenants living in 2 million plus property's but it won't for tenants living less than 2 million properties (or portfolio's) giving the small buy to let person, an upper hand.

Perhaps just a case of sour grapes by those rich enough to know better ?

It would take quite a while to pay back the £1tn+ national debt via a tax that is projected to raise about £1.5 billion a year!

Besides, Labour don't want to use the money on paying off the national debt. They want to use the money to "save" the NHS. Quite how a tax which will raise just over 1% of the NHS's budget will do that I don't know but there you. I wonder how HMRC will collect the tax from offshore companies. No-one seems to be able to get them to pay council tax. Perhaps they can seize the property and sell it - that should encourage inward investment.

wotsthat

All this excitement about a 'big' tax and policy change that will raise £1.5bn? Already Labour have said that people with fluffy white hair won't have to pay it so that's £350m to come off.

The numbers are peanuts and should, at the very least, indicate that this is a creeping stealth tax waiting in the wings.

Apparently this £1.5bn will save the NHS. Why not do something radical like charging people for missed appointments? Why not introduce an element of charging - what's the point of taking responsibility for your own health when there's a free health service that we're positively encouraged to use inefficiently?

£1.5bn- what a joke. I can save them £1.5bn in about 15 minutes.