Multinational forced to pay some tax

[gas112]

The interesting thing about Thatcher's vote buying scheme was that the local councils (the owners of the homes ) were forced to sell them below market value. So although the lucky tenants got an unearned windfall, the rest of the community (ratepayers and local citizens) had the value of communally-owned property taken away from them.

And given to a lucky minority.

you do know that right to buy was in way before thatcher ?
And lets think who those lucky minority you refer to would have been . The less well off section of society hence why they were renting and not owning

 

[Mottie]

Your sister must have been minging.

We had a saucepan full of hot top-up in between bathers.

 

[JohnD]

... lucky minority...

They were very lucky

And they were not selected by virtue of being those most in need.

And as you say, a tiny minority benefitting at the expense of the community as a whole.

 

[gas112]

They were very lucky

And they were not selected by virtue of being those most in need.

And as you say, a tiny minority benefitting at the expense of the community as a whole.

is 4.5 million families a tiny minority ?

 

[SirGalahad]

If we had a Land Value Tax - more land would be opened up to being built than left to land bankers.

Plot A next to Plot B - both the same size.

Developer in Plot A builds 50 homes, the value of Plot B has increased with the owner doing nothing.

Owner sells Plot B for a tidy sum and buys more land and sits on it waiting for someone else to increase its value by building something nearby.

LVT

Plot A developer builds homes. The value of Plot B has gone up - owner of plot B now has to pay tax on the land whether he builds on it or not. he has a few choices - do nothing and pay the LVT or build homes on the land or sell the land to someone else to build homes.

Having LVT encourages land to be put to use rather than land banked.

 

[SirGalahad]

you do know that right to buy was in way before thatcher ?
And lets think who those lucky minority you refer to would have been . The less well off section of society hence why they were renting and not owning

Can the less well off now own? Or will the renters forever?

 

[JohnD]

Just imagine how much better off the nation would be if we had four and a half million good-quality homes as our stock of social housing for, as you said earlier "The less well off section of society"

 

[SirGalahad]

Just imagine how much better off the nation would be if we had four and a half million good-quality homes as our stock of social housing for, as you said earlier "The less well off section of society"

We could increase AD and boost the economy by going on a house building drive and slum clearance. However we are stuck with Governments that are wed to the idea that the market which is short termist in nature must dicatate what happens.

 

[JohnD]

Neither will I be convinced investments/savings should be taxed.

So if a person earns £50,000 as a plumber or a pole-dancer, you think they should pay tax on it.

But if they have dividend income of £50,000, you think they shouldn't

And if they invest a million pounds and make £50,000 capital gains, you think they shouldn't.

 

[gas112]

Can the less well off now own? Or will the renters forever?

of course they can cut your cloth to suit but as has always been the case it depends on where in the country you live

 

[gas112]

Just imagine how much better off the nation would be if we had four and a half million good-quality homes as our stock of social housing for, as you said earlier "The less well off section of society"

so if they were not sold off who do you think would be living in them now do you think these 4.5 million would have moved out ?

 

[motorbiking]

So if a person earns £50,000 as a plumber or a pole-dancer, you think they should pay tax on it.

But if they have dividend income of £50,000, you think they shouldn't

And if they invest a million pounds and make £50,000 capital gains, you think they shouldn't.

These dividends and investments, they're guaranteed right? No chance of the investment falling in value? This pole dancing plumber, he/she can't set themselves up in business "Pole Dancing Plumbers ltd" and benefit from the same rules?

Oh wait... the income is not guaranteed and yes they can

 

[Brigadier]

Lucky Pensioners given final salary pensions that they didn't contribute to an unearned windfall.

Part of their contract of employment Ts and Cs.

Lucky Low paid people given income support an unearned windfall.

If full-time employment paid enough to live on.............

Lucky NHS users given 10s of thousands in treatment an unearned windfall

Open to all, including...........

............the 10% of workers who pay 60% of income tax can't benefit.

I note that the 10% of workers who pay 60% of income tax can't benefit.

Benefit from what?
Final salary pension pots? Really?
Being low paid? Well, d'uh...........
NHS treatment? No less than anyone else........

I note that the 10% of workers who pay 60% of income tax can't benefit.

I note that the 90% of workers can't benefit from the tax "efficiency" schemes and advice that were written to benefit the 10% who can.

 

[motorbiking]

exactly - if the rules apply to all of us, they aren't unfair.

Some people on this thread think its ok to have built up their Stock ISAs, PEPs UK government gilts and Premium Bonds
betting, lottery or pools winnings etc and earn tax free, but not OK for some 'day trader' to only pay 20% tax on his gains.

Why should person A: invest £1 and earn £1M and pay zero tax, while person B: invests £200k and makes £1M and pays £160k tax

because they both had the same ability.

 

[motorbiking]

If we had a Land Value Tax - more land would be opened up to being built than left to land bankers.

Plot A next to Plot B - both the same size.

Developer in Plot A builds 50 homes, the value of Plot B has increased with the owner doing nothing.

Owner sells Plot B for a tidy sum and buys more land and sits on it waiting for someone else to increase its value by building something nearby.

LVT

Plot A developer builds homes. The value of Plot B has gone up - owner of plot B now has to pay tax on the land whether he builds on it or not. he has a few choices - do nothing and pay the LVT or build homes on the land or sell the land to someone else to build homes.

Having LVT encourages land to be put to use rather than land banked.

did you work out that it would also make new homes more expensive as developers would be paying LVT from plan to sale. Doh!