- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
nonsense. Cost go up or quality comes down pick one or both.
Should billionaires and multinationals pay fair tax?
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Thats sums up wealth taxes and its why hardly any countries do it, those that have, have often had to scrap it due to the damage it causes to the economy and when it all boils down... its nothing more than a jealousy tax.
And of course in France it caused massive capital flight resulting in an overall net reduction of tax collected. So the jealousy tax actually reduced income and meant the less well off had to meet the short fall. What a stunningly ridiculous idea it was... good job.
The Economic Consequences of the French Wealth Tax
Despite attempts to 'unwind' the Impôt de Solidarité sur la Fortune ('Solidarity Wealth Tax,' the French wealth tax) during the last legislature (2002-2007), IS
papers.ssrn.com
That's not the way prices work.
But with this comment you are actually perpetuating the very thing you are arguing against
You describe owning a home as a housing ladder and for that to work it needs the value of what you call an asset to increase. Maybe that is the problem with homes being considered a ladder. With the ultimate aim to live in a big house mortgage free in leafy Surry and then snipe at everyone else wanting to do the same
The very definition of a champagne socialist.
Last edited:
House prices are determined by supply and demand.
A house builder can’t charge more than current market value…..new builds are not the only option.
No it does not
First time buyers often get a studio flat, then they might buy a 1 bedroom flat, then a middle terrace
I am not a socialist
The U.K. has a massive problem with wealth inequalityThats sums up wealth taxes and its why hardly any countries do it, those that have, have often had to scrap it due to the damage it causes to the economy and when it all boils down... its nothing more than a jealousy tax.
And of course in France it caused massive capital flight resulting in an overall net reduction of tax collected. So the jealousy tax actually reduced income and meant the less well off had to meet the short fall. What a stunningly ridiculous idea it was... good job.
The Economic Consequences of the French Wealth Tax
Despite attempts to 'unwind' the Impôt de Solidarité sur la Fortune ('Solidarity Wealth Tax,' the French wealth tax) during the last legislature (2002-2007), ISpapers.ssrn.com
The U.K. has terrible public services
The average person has poor living standards.
The cause is wealthy people accumulating assets and the poor losing assets
What is your solution to this?
Or don’t you want a solution?
You haven’t bothered researching Land Value Tax so you are still talking from a position of ignorance.
Please could you research it, then we could have an informed debate
Marxist then
So there you are sitting in your 1M mortgage free Surry home watching its value increase as an asset but you have a problem with someone with a 200k home who has paid their mortgage and buys another 200k home that they rent out to people who want to rent, they are offering a service to the community with their "wealth" and you want to prevent them from doing so.
The reason for such high wealth inequality in this country is because the wealthy are constantly increasing their assets whilst the poorest are losing assets.
LVT is one option to help reverse this.
What is your solution?
I’ve already stated I am a part of the problem, although I don’t rent out properties so only a tiny part of the problem. My home is my home whatever it’s worth
People make me laugh when they bleat on about housing and the value of property, primarily the fact that values increase, sometimes exponentially.
What do these people actually want to happen? We either have a free market approach to property or we don't.
Do these people want some sort of cap implemented through legislation? e.g. the value of any individual property cannot increase by more than x% per year and cannot be sold for more than this value. Is that the desired solution? So how would that be administered? One could simply offer the seller a separate wad of cash to secure the sale.
Let's say the authorities actually get their finger out and build enough houses, including social houses. That doesn't preclude values continuing to increase in certain areas e.g. where the property is highly desired regardless of the quantity of other properties in that locality.
And, although some will be reluctant to admit it, it can be a different scenario if you end up benefitting from such a situation. e.g. someone buys a house for £250k x years back then puts it on the market because they're relocating. It's now worth £420k. They're downsizing to a property costing £300k. So do these highly principled people say to the estate agent 'I don't need to realise anything over £300k for my house, so please just put it on the market for £300k.'
It's like the people who live in small (usually coastal) towns and villages moaning about second home owners and/or the fact locals can no longer afford to buy in the area.
Emmm, at some point a LOCAL has sold their property to a non local and been quite happy to accept more dosh for it
That point they're not quite so keen to shout about.
Double standards abound when it comes to the subject of property, unless you have left wing socialist leanings and don't own a property, deeming everyone that does to be 'rich' and 'essentially a piece of free market capitalist scum.'
What do these people actually want to happen? We either have a free market approach to property or we don't.
Do these people want some sort of cap implemented through legislation? e.g. the value of any individual property cannot increase by more than x% per year and cannot be sold for more than this value. Is that the desired solution? So how would that be administered? One could simply offer the seller a separate wad of cash to secure the sale.
Let's say the authorities actually get their finger out and build enough houses, including social houses. That doesn't preclude values continuing to increase in certain areas e.g. where the property is highly desired regardless of the quantity of other properties in that locality.
And, although some will be reluctant to admit it, it can be a different scenario if you end up benefitting from such a situation. e.g. someone buys a house for £250k x years back then puts it on the market because they're relocating. It's now worth £420k. They're downsizing to a property costing £300k. So do these highly principled people say to the estate agent 'I don't need to realise anything over £300k for my house, so please just put it on the market for £300k.'
It's like the people who live in small (usually coastal) towns and villages moaning about second home owners and/or the fact locals can no longer afford to buy in the area.
Emmm, at some point a LOCAL has sold their property to a non local and been quite happy to accept more dosh for it
That point they're not quite so keen to shout about.Double standards abound when it comes to the subject of property, unless you have left wing socialist leanings and don't own a property, deeming everyone that does to be 'rich' and 'essentially a piece of free market capitalist scum.'
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Unless he can find a better way to help you borrow more money… which is exactly what happens