Multinational forced to pay some tax

Seems to have all gone quiet on this thread.
To summarise:
Notch thinks people in big houses that they worked and paid for years ago that have gone up due to inflation and the rise in the property market should be forced to trade down to a smaller property or be taxed to remain in their own property. Notch has not said what size house he is living in and how many people live in that house with or whether he would be prepared to trade town or be taxed to remain there if and when those people leave.
Galahad thinks that the little old lady living in a big house that she worked and paid for should downsize so that a couple living with their parents can move in because they need the space but doesn’t even consider that the couple living with their parents could move into the house that he wants the little old lady to downsize to. He says this is because she did nothing to the house while the price went up because other people invested in the area, built shops, housing and people have moved in and the price of the house she lives in has increased without her doing anything and she has benefitted from that.
JohnD is against what he calls 'tax avoidance' but won’t admit whether he is avoiding tax on his European investments and dividends.

Have I got that right or have I missed anything?
 
Mottie said:
Seems to have all gone quiet on this thread.
To summarise:
Notch thinks people in big houses that they worked and paid for years ago that have gone up due to inflation and the rise in the property market should be forced to trade down to a smaller property or be taxed to remain in their own property. Notch has not said what size house he is living in and how many people live in that house with or whether he would be prepared to trade town or be taxed to remain there if and when those people leave.
Galahad thinks that the little old lady living in a big house that she worked and paid for should downsize so that a couple living with their parents can move in because they need the space but doesn’t even consider that the couple living with their parents could move into the house that he wants the little old lady to downsize to. He says this is because she did nothing to the house while the price went up because other people invested in the area, built shops, housing and people have moved in and the price of the house she lives in has increased without her doing anything and she has benefitted from that.
JohnD is against what he calls 'tax avoidance' but won’t admit whether he is avoiding tax on his European investments and dividends.

Have I got that right or have I missed anything?
Click to expand...

Re: the "little old lady". Currently:

She lives in a house she owns. Great.

It is far bigger than she needs. OK.

Hopefully, she can manage to run it, and keep it comfortable.

It is, in effect, a pile of cash that is not hers, but her beneficiaries'.

Meanwhile, (due to the inflated cost of housing when compared to the average person's income),

many people, whether they be single, coupled-up, families etc, cannot afford to either buy nor rent a house for themselves.

And the government are doing little to make provision for those families.


Apart from the little old lady's warm glow, from living in her own house and the knowledge that her beneficiaries will be able to carry on the cycle on the hamster wheel, who benefits?
 
Mottie said:
Seems to have all gone quiet on this thread.
To summarise:
Notch thinks people in big houses that they worked and paid for years ago that have gone up due to inflation and the rise in the property market should be forced to trade down to a smaller property or be taxed to remain in their own property. Notch has not said what size house he is living in and how many people live in that house with or whether he would be prepared to trade town or be taxed to remain there if and when those people leave.
Galahad thinks that the little old lady living in a big house that she worked and paid for should downsize so that a couple living with their parents can move in because they need the space but doesn’t even consider that the couple living with their parents could move into the house that he wants the little old lady to downsize to. He says this is because she did nothing to the house while the price went up because other people invested in the area, built shops, housing and people have moved in and the price of the house she lives in has increased without her doing anything and she has benefitted from that.
JohnD is against what he calls 'tax avoidance' but won’t admit whether he is avoiding tax on his European investments and dividends.

Have I got that right or have I missed anything?
Click to expand...
Regardless of who said what, taxes such as capital gains, inheritance or the idea that people should be 'encouraged' into smaller properties to free up their larger ones are all hideous concepts and ideas.
 
@diy_fun_uk

You think it is wrong that someone who makes £100,000 in Capital Gains should pay tax on it?

But you think it is right that someone who makes £100,000 in wages should pay tax on it?

Why?
 
I know this thread started off in Italy, but as far as I am aware nobody is arguing for capital gains tax aligned with the US tax system (i.e. zero capital gains tax).

You describe industries and earning models that you don't appear to have much erxperience of. Deferred interest or capital as income are very rare and any so called "high wealth" thats what HMRC call the group btw, individual who tries to push 100% of his income as capital will attract a lot of HMRC scrutiny. I know a couple of insurance underwriters who set their business up this way (minimum wage + bonuses as capital) and are currently feeling the breath of HMRC on their necks. They are the business owners and have their personal assets at stake with every deal they sign.

Of course, where an individual has extremely valuable skills, can pick and choose where they base themselves and are working for a very low retainer and assuming significant personal risk based on the success of the business. We must surely recognise that this is different from hours worked * hourly rate, which is fairly guaranteed.

It's not just the wealthy who can leverage these models, many small business owners opt for similar tax efficient schemes. Again they do not have the safety of being employees.

In the example of the low paid Nurse, who I would propose, sets herself up as an independent first aid trainer, she too could benefit from the above models. This encourages people to give it a go. I support a tax model that recognises that private industry has significant risks.

You can't pick and choose who can benefit from tax rules, it can't be OK for you to have an Investment ISA, SEIS etc, but not ok for others.
 
Mottie said:
So you are saying she should pay because other people have invested? Did she ask or encourage them to? You idiot.
Click to expand...

You daft berk it's called free riding. But she benefited. You go to school?
 
Last edited:
motorbiking said:
...I know this thread started off in Italy, but as far as I am aware nobody is arguing for capital gains tax aligned with the US tax system (i.e. zero capital gains tax).....
Click to expand...

Nobody apart from diy_fun_uk you mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top