Nice People 13: Nice Save

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

Who says the richest have one two million pound property, not several under £250 or £300 k ?


One of my god mothers owns a house in an area now considered quite decent, but in the sixties, when they bought it, considered rather down market. Its certainly worth more than two million, But its pretty basic. When she bought it it was NOT worth a lot at all, she hasn't done much to make it worth anything, she certainly doesn't want to move out of London. She's not particularly cash rich ( infact she might be now from an inheritance, but I'm not certain). Its not hard to see why some one like her, working in an exciting but lucrative role her working life, who did not take far flung holidays as an adult, but rather kept a roof over the head of her children ( later as a widow when her husband died). Would feel 'not rich' because a house that was not very expensive when she bought it now is worth something even though she hasn't done anything to it, even , frankly, let it rot a bit.

This sort of thing is a big problem in France. A perennial news story is some old dear living in poverty in the countryside somewhere suddenly finds that the area has become fashionable and her hovel is worth gazillions and she is subject to the dreaded Wealth Tax.

I have some sympathy but OTOH, why should taxpayers subsidise someone's income who has millions in assets? We wouldn't expect shares or bonds to be exempt from means testing so what is so special about the family home?

Nikkster

Generali wrote: »

someone's income who has millions in assets? We wouldn't expect shares or bonds to be exempt from means testing so what is so special about the family home?

I don't really know what I think about this - I'm pretty sure I'll never be 'wealthy', though I'm also far from being in poverty.

I guess because of the word I've bolded? The old dear's home doesn't generate an income as such, it's 'just' increased in value. Should s/he have to sell it to pay the wealth tax if they have no other way of paying?

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

This sort of thing is a big problem in France. A perennial news story is some old dear living in poverty in the countryside somewhere suddenly finds that the area has become fashionable and her hovel is worth gazillions and she is subject to the dreaded Wealth Tax.

I have some sympathy but OTOH, why should taxpayers subsidise someone's income who has millions in assets? We wouldn't expect shares or bonds to be exempt from means testing so what is so special about the family home?

I'm on the fence tbh, its the idea that these people are living the life of Riley in their 'mansions' and enjoying their wealth, where as actually in many cases, they just live in a house they bought a long time ago. In some cases the aces are real dumps. Just valuable for where they are. And some forms of financial saving are tax free, just like some spending is. And VAT wouldn't apply as time doesn't in itself add value, though its payable by those who do DIY of course.


I'm not vehemently against it tbh, though I'm certainly not whole heatedly for it. I DO object to the message these are rich people who are just swanning around. LOTS of people are, I agree! but many who I know aren't. There are some people, surprising numbers (something I think its easy to forget in some circles and places like this where we talk about property ladders etc) where some people haven't always traded up. I know its not so much in my generation, and that its not so lucky for us and those younger than me, but .....don't we wish it were? I know, for example, of a two bedroom bungalow that I remember my parents cooing over being 1/4 of a million in the nineties and it was for sale last year for almost a million. ( it now has an upstairs bedroom too) another property boom, population growth..... It won't be too long before places like that are 'mansion tax' eligible. Chalet bungalows outside the m25.

I know everyone's aspiration is different ( and thank god for that) , but I think those for whom that is their true ambition in life cannot be called greedy or 'living it up' if that is their sole property desire. When I look at some of the two million pound places on offer some I think ,

'Wow, what a dream place'. Others I think ' gosh, gulp'. I wouldn't feel 'that wealthy' if it were my sole place. Not as wealthy as I might in many other less well monitored and clamped down upon areas right now.

Again, I'm not necessarily arguing against it. I'm arguing against the going for it because by default 'those people can afford it at little cost or disruption' mentality or the ' politics of envy'. These election years bring out a lot of the latter and they are little less useless than the thoughtlessness of those who can and have towards society as a whole IMO.

Doozergirl

If someone has such a tiny income here then they're entitled to welfare assistance. I don't think the amount of equity is even taken into account?

I don't operate on the basis of envy, btw, I actually think that we should all pay our share and I don't ever complain about what I am required to pay. I live in a particularly high charging area for council tax, but that's my luck or choice. If I don't like it, I do have choices.

michaels

Spend it all on 'hos and blow, no tax that way; whereas be sensible and invest in an asset and all you will qualify for is more tax and exclusion from benefits....

vivatifosi

Nikkster wrote: »

Possible reasons:
- Things the council have to pay for are more expensive Stevenage compared to Hull (e.g. but not limited to wages)
- They figure they can get away with it because people will have to pay it (housing costs in general are more expensive in Stevenage than in Hull, I'd guess non-minimum wages are too)

Not saying it's fair, but there you go...

Historically (c2005) it's because the government, meaning John Prescott, gave greater subsidies to councils in the north than in the south. Back then, counties in the SE had to find 50% of their funding locally, whereas poorer counties only had to raise 25% of their funding. I daresay this has changed since, and may explain why the cuts feel more swingeing in certain areas.

A lot of jobs pay similar rates nationally due to national pay agreements. A lot of local councils (e.g. Herts) have scrapped local weighting as part of the cuts. So it's an example of high house prices impacting into other areas and just making the south east blooming expensive.

vivatifosi

Doozergirl wrote: »

...and we're back to looking at people poorer than ourselves...

I'd pay more than £400 more to live in Herts over Hull

I'm grumpy this evening. It shows.

I notice you didn't say you'd pay £400 more to live in Stevenage:rotfl:

PasturesNew

It's not a north/south split.

I would point out that the council tax in Westminster is ridiculously small compared to other areas.

Westminster band D £681.68
Richmond band D £1,490.60

Where I live, band D £1,626.67
Where my sibling lives, band D £1,512

Nikkster

michaels wrote: »

Spend it all on 'hos and blow, no tax that way; whereas be sensible and invest in an asset and all you will qualify for is more tax and exclusion from benefits....

Someone recently sent me a text that started 'Ho Nikkster', closely followed by another one saying they meant 'Hi'.

I nearly replied back saying ' Who you calling a ho? ' then decided that for the person in question, and other things going on, it would be better to say that it was a bit early in the year to greet someone with 'ho, ho, ho'.

vivatifosi

Re the quiz... apparently I should live in St Albans but would hate the Hebrides. This surprised me as I've spent most of the day thinking how magnificent Maggie's photo of Snowdonia is and I'd love to live somewhere like that. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying there are no mountains in St Albans.