Should billionaires and multinationals pay fair tax?

For most people it is the single most expensive asset they will ever own. Why is anything wrong, with that being a safe investment. Why would anyone want someone to lose money... their hard earned money on that.
The lefty socialist ideologs on here do not think property should be an investment. I suspect their thinking and ideal world would be this:

So you bought your property for £60k 27 years ago and would now like to sell? It will go on the market for £60k and not a penny more. NEXT! (stamps book)
So you bought your property for £150k 19 years ago and would now like to sell? It will go on the market for £150k and not a penny more. NEXT! (stamps book)
So you bought your property for £120k 23 years ago and would now like to sell? It will go on the market for £120k and not a penny more. NEXT! (stamps book)

and so on ...
 
The lefty socialist ideologs on here do not think property should be an investment. I suspect their thinking and ideal world would be this:

So you bought your property for £60k 27 years ago and would now like to sell? It will go on the market for £60k and not a penny more. NEXT! (stamps book)
So you bought your property for £150k 19 years ago and would now like to sell? It will go on the market for £150k and not a penny more. NEXT! (stamps book)
So you bought your property for £120k 23 years ago and would now like to sell? It will go on the market for £120k and not a penny more. NEXT! (stamps book)

and so on ...

Making stuff up again to support your position again, DIY (y)
 
For most people it is the single most expensive asset they will ever own. Why is anything wrong, with that being a safe investment. Why would anyone want someone to lose money... their hard earned money on that.
Valid points, but your Rigsby, clawing at profits waffle has little to do with the argument.

Similarly, those who buy a house as a home, are in it for the long haul, irrespective of price fluctuations and will extend or improve their home regardless.
 
The lefty socialist ideologs on here do not think property should be an investment. I suspect their thinking and ideal world would be this:

So you bought your property for £60k 27 years ago and would now like to sell? It will go on the market for £60k and not a penny more. NEXT! (stamps book)
So you bought your property for £150k 19 years ago and would now like to sell? It will go on the market for £150k and not a penny more. NEXT! (stamps book)
So you bought your property for £120k 23 years ago and would now like to sell? It will go on the market for £120k and not a penny more. NEXT! (stamps book)

and so on ...
There you go again with your stupid strawman arguments. Who said property shouldn't be an investment?
 
There you go again with your stupid strawman arguments. Who said property shouldn't be an investment?
Oh, so it can be an investment?

How much of an investment though? Cause it seems a few on here want some sort of authoritarian scheme in place whereby any financial appreciation year on year is limited and/or property tax to be greatly increased to level out any gain.
 
Cause it seems a few on here want some sort of authoritarian scheme in place whereby any financial appreciation year on year is limited and/or property tax to be greatly increased to level out any gain.
Where has anyone said that?
 
So, come on then, if property can be an investment, how much of an investment?

Oh that's right, building more houses is going to sort all this out, ha ha haaaaaaaa.
 
Now imagine a world where house prices remained the same or went down in value. Does it matter? of course it does.

Actually, you are mistaken (no surprise there)

Let's suppose there is a commodity, which can readily be bought and sold on the open market.

Everybody needs one. Everybody has one. Almost always, people who have one keep it for many years, and only sell it when they buy another.

Suppose for some reason you need to sell one, and buy another.

On Monday they both cost £1.

On Tuesday they both cost £2

On Wednesday they both cost 75p

On each of those days, you need one, and you have one.

If you view a house as a home for living in, fluctuations are of little importance.

Of course, if you are a speculator,buying tomatoes in the hope of reselling them at a higher price, you would like the price of tomatoes to constantly rise. Same with gold, or oil.

Any if one commodity ceases its constant rise, you stop speculating on that, and start speculating on something else.

You have no Minerva-given right make profits of infinite value and for an infinite period based on your belief that tomatoes must forever increase in value.

This is not "unfair" or based on hatred of tomato speculators.

Asset price inflation is not a good thing.
 
House price inflation is one of the reasons the wealthy keep accumulating assets…..which you think is a good thing.
Oh I see so it is ok for a person to have 1 big asset rising like you in your 1M mortgage free house but not ok for someone to have 2 houses at half the value of yours. Difference is the one renting out a second home is providing a safe home for another family whilst you selfishly sit in your mansion.
 
There you go again with your stupid strawman arguments. Who said property shouldn't be an investment?
What - have you not been reading this thread !. This is your recognised MO - you always act dumb pretending not to see things.
 
Oh I see so it is ok for a person to have 1 big asset rising like you in your 1M mortgage free house but not ok for someone to have 2 houses at half the value of yours. Difference is the one renting out a second home is providing a safe home for another family whilst you selfishly sit in your mansion.
Why is it OK for the main home to increase in valuation that outstrips normal inflation?

The spiral just gets worse as less get on and more fall off
 
Back
Top