Scottish houses over £250,000 will not sell!

CLAPTON

redcard wrote: »

If your business plan involves moving abroad when taxes get too high then surely the fact that you haven't moved abroad means taxes aren't too high.

Like duh!

it is a lot easier to simply choose NOT to put new investment into Scotland than it is to leave what's there

it will take some time to determine whether scotland loses net investment or gains which will depend upon many factors

wotsthat

redcard wrote: »

If your business plan involves moving abroad when taxes get too high then surely the fact that you haven't moved abroad means taxes aren't too high.

Like duh!

Only if the logic is the continued presence of business is indicative of insufficient tax being paid. Not a logic I share.

MobileSaver

As you didn't challenge it I guess we can assume you now accept you were wrong about high earners only paying minimal tax.

redcard wrote: »

So you're defining fair share as the equivalent tax paid by the average earner over their lifetime?

Yes, in my opinion only the most green-eyed monster would think that someone who pays more tax in one year than the average person does in their lifetime was not paying their fair share.

redcard wrote: »

Could you let me know how you arrived at this conclusion?

Very simply maths, obviously approximated. Average person earns £26,500 and pays £3,300 income tax a year. Assume working for 45 years and in their lifetime they'll pay £148,500 tax. Anyone earning £360k a year pays £148,000 a year.

redcard wrote: »

If your supplier screws you over one month, surely you don't use him the next month? And you certainly don't wait until he screws you over 17 more times before thinking about doing something.

Your analogy is flawed; the supplier isn't screwing you over, he puts prices up a bit one month and then a bit more the next month etc. At first you are annoyed, then concerned and eventually the prices are so high that you do something. Yes that may well be the 17th time, you seem to be suggesting that everyone should jump ship as soon as prices go up one month - you need to wake up and enter the real world...

Thrugelmir

redcard wrote: »

II'm interested why a successful entrepreneur, with intelligence, acumen, and foresight would wait until their hand is forced and have to make a decision from a position of weakness.

Entrepreneurs leave with a position of strength. As there's always someone else willing to give them a warm welcome.

CLAPTON

Irrespective of the detail, what can be clearly seen, is that the first real tax change being made in Scotland is one that helps the poor and costs the rich quite a lot.
One can reasonably conclude that any future changes in SCottish tax rules will follow the same principle.

whether that will attract new businesses, jobs and people to Scotland or not, remains to be seen

The_White_Horse

why is there stamp duty at all?????? why on earth should someone pay tax to buy a house with money that has already been taxed.

the fair way to deal with this is a tax on the seller (not the buyer) based on the profit they have made. So, 1% on first 100k profit, 2% on second £100k and so on.

This way, people who just bought for £400k and sold for £450k will pay tax on £50k and those who bought the house in 1972 for £14k will pay tax on £436k profit.

gazter

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is the above true? If so, I don't see it as too massive a problem to be honest.

Afterall, no one HAS to buy a million pound house. It's a tax on your choices, not on your wealth.

For those who just have to buy a normal place to live in, they won't pay as much tax.

Feel taxes like this are fair to be honest. In actual fact, I think it's rather a good move, protecting those who buy a normal house to house their family in, and only taxing those who choose to buy something well over most peoples actual needs.

You are reaching a punitive level though, punitive taxes tend to have undesirable effects.

gazter

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who has voted with their feet in France?

I know business don't particularly like it there, but are people themselves moving elsewhere in any large number?

I don't think any country does particularly well attracting wealthy people who want to avoid tax.

I dont think i've ever met a person that doesnt want to avoid tax. Some people are greedy and will do anything they can to save a penny, but many others reach a point in which they feel that they are not being fairly taxed, but punished. Those people will leave.

gazter

redcard wrote: »

Letting the top earners away with paying minimal tax has not done much do the economy as it is, so why not wait and see what happens when they pay their fair share?

45p in the pound minimal? Could you please tell me what you would consider fair?

System

CLAPTON wrote: »

One can reasonably conclude that any future changes in SCottish tax rules will follow the same principle.

whether that will attract new businesses, jobs and people to Scotland or not, remains to be seen

Isn't it handy having a place so near to home to experiment on, yet safely over the boarder, and easy to disown if it goes wrong?

It's like giving dubious food to the dog first to see if it makes it ill.