Wealth Tax in the UK

Classical Mechanic said:
Old people sat on large assets have options where many in society have none.
Click to expand...

Ruthless. You could be that old person one day, sat on your large asset, that could be the only remaining link to your past and family. I wager your attitude would have changed by that time.

Knowing the way my parents aged and my current remaining Aunties, I would argue that elderly people have more rapidly diminishing options than you.
 
Volumiza said:
Ruthless. You could be that old person one day, sat on your large asset, that could be the only remaining link to your past and family. I wager your attitude would have changed by that time.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. Perhaps I view it like this because I'm not a massively sentimental person in that regard. Of course it would be better to get the tax off Amazon or such like.
 
Volumiza said:
I'd rather fall into the £500k category myself than rinse the elderly.

Amazon though ... fecking scandalous.
Click to expand...

How is it rinsing the elderly though? I'd guess the number of old people that are living in £500k+ properties that cannot get hold of £5k over 5 years for tax is very small. Worst case this small group would have to sell up and move to a property valued at say £400k and pocket tens of thousands of pounds for their troubles. It doesn't seem like some massive injustice to me.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
How is it rinsing the elderly though? I'd guess the number of old people that are living in £500k+ properties that cannot get hold of £5k over 5 years for tax is very small. Worst case this small group would have to sell up and move to a property valued at say £400k and pocket tens of thousands of pounds for their troubles. It doesn't seem like some massive injustice to me.
Click to expand...

I think once you start making anyone move house a line has been crossed and maybe they have enough troubles already at that age without being turfed out of their homes?
 
NotThatSoph said:
It's a bit of a funny contradiction of sort, though.

People want to own a home, and they want to be wealthy. But, if they own an expensive house they don't consider themselves wealthy, even though they would if they held the same amount of wealth in other assets. Maybe not a contradicton, but curious.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about being wealthy or not. For me (and I appreciate it may be different for others) the idea of living long term in someone else's house (over which I am likely to have little control, nor the will to invest in or improve) isn't appealing. The first house my wife and I bought was nothing flash, but it was ours to do with what we pleased in terms of decoration or renovation. It was a home and a major stepping stone in our lives.

Now, we have a family home and it's value to us is more than bricks and mortar, but also I know that barring any major disasters (of which I have no control) it's a sound investment on which we'll make a return when we downsize to something smaller when we're older. We've probably gained £30 - £40k in equity in the property since we bought it 5 years ago and had (and have) the benefit of living in it.

Personally, I would rather have a house of my own than money in the bank. And to pick up your point, most people who "own" an expensive house won't own it for decades, they're just able to borrow huge sums a sensible interest rates to fund it. If I had a £150k car and £30k watch I wouldn't think I was wealthy if I didn't own them outright.
 
I agree with the general jist of this thread - if a wealth tax is to be implemented it should come into play at a level slightly above my own wealth.
 
Jippy said:
Why don't we just burn the elderly as an untapped and abundant source of fuel? If a government policy is to potentially turf tens of thousands of pensioners out of their homes, then it probably needs rethinking.
Click to expand...
:lol:

cheeky bastards, staying alive n stuff, living in houses they paid for and taxed all their lives
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
Bolded part; why?
Click to expand...

Because that is what happened under the previous system.

Which was described, in my opinion incorrectly, by the report as generous and you questioned me on it saying" how can free education not be generous".

I am explaining how it wasn't generous in reality.

If you think about it taking 10% of kids to university, then remember that 10% includes all the privately educated kids who want to go with the massive privilege of a far superior education to get them there. It didn't leave many places for the plebs.
 
Jippy said:
No you haven't paid tax on the price rise, but if you're buying out of taxed income and are taxed on the way in, do you think further tax is really warranted? We are a high tax country as it is. Target corporation tax, not the average Joe.


Hope they listen to that recommendation, it sounds sensible. Lower the higher rate tax threshold, surely that can grab a decent chunk of money.
Click to expand...
Disagree with the bolded part. I do not think we are particularly high tax.
 
finneh said:
I agree with the general jist of this thread - if a wealth tax is to be implemented it should come into play at a level slightly above my own wealth.
Click to expand...

:lol:

It's hard to disagree with you.
 
Rado_N said:
You think targeting it at people earning below £50k is fairer than at people with a net worth in excess of half a million?
Click to expand...
I'm moaning more at the grab on property, not income tbh- our pensions are among the worst in Europe as it is.

It comes back to the debate around what constitutes wealth. Maybe they should just label it a coronavirus recovery fund or something and take it through corporation tax and moving the HRT threshold down.

Classical Mechanic said:
:lol:

Settle down Jippy. Is there even any evidence that there are tens of thousands of property rich but impoverished old people that this would affect anyway?
Click to expand...
:lol:Tax gets me angry. I may be making assumptions, but must be loads in London tbf, given the UK's demographics.
 
Volumiza said:
I think once you start making anyone move house a line has been crossed and maybe they have enough troubles already at that age without being turfed out of their homes?
Click to expand...

Thats an odd position, people are turfed out of their homes all the time, usually for reasons they have no control over.
At what point does this become unacceptable to you?
 
manc exile said:
Thats an odd position, people are turfed out of their homes all the time, usually for reasons they have no control over.
At what point does this become unacceptable to you?
Click to expand...

:lol: When does that ever happen?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
If they're sat on a £1m property but surviving on £80 a week then they'd be best advised to sell up, down size (in terms of value) and live far more comfortably. They could also pay the wealth tax too.
Click to expand...
Classical Mechanic said:
How is it rinsing the elderly though? I'd guess the number of old people that are living in £500k+ properties that cannot get hold of £5k over 5 years for tax is very small. Worst case this small group would have to sell up and move to a property valued at say £400k and pocket tens of thousands of pounds for their troubles. It doesn't seem like some massive injustice to me.
Click to expand...

we are not in a situation where we should be forcing older people to move home.

this is frankly a scandalous suggestion.

moving home is stressful enough, do that at 75+, having been forced to do so - and out of a home you may have lived all your life.

are we really suggesting we feck over some of our old folks like this?
 
So we're now onto saying we can't tax because it would kick old grannies out? Fine stick it on inheritance tax but then people will moan about that unearned wealth too.
 
This whole thread is basically “yeah it should probably happen but the conditions for it to happen should rule me out”
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
we are not in a situation where we should be forcing older people to move home.

this is frankly a scandalous suggestion.

moving home is stressful enough, do that at 75+, having been forced to do so - and out of a home you may have lived all your life.

are we really suggesting we feck over some of our old folks like this?
Click to expand...

I tend to think the whole asset rich cash poor granny who is tearfully forced to move to a slightly less salubrious address is little more than a rhetorical guilt trip those on the right like to trot out when something like this is suggested. I'm sceptical as to how many of these folks would actually exist.
 
It's odd that this thread has turned to a discussion about whether it's morally okay to turf the elderly from their homes when the policy being discussed won't do that, at all. It's a weird side debate that has absolutely nothing to do with the proposed wealth tax.

If the question is "will the Tories drive the wealthy from their homes?" then I would have thought common sense would tell you the answer is no.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I tend to think the whole asset rich cash poor granny who is tearfully forced to move to a slightly less salubrious address is little more than a rhetorical guilt trip those on the right like to trot out when something like this is suggested. I'm sceptical as to how many of these folks would actually exist.
Click to expand...

About 750,000 in London alone, considering the average house price in London is above 500k and there are 1.5 million over 60s there.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I tend to think the whole asset rich cash poor granny who is tearfully forced to move to a slightly less salubrious address is little more than a rhetorical guilt trip those on the right like to trot out when something like this is suggested. I'm sceptical as to how many of these folks would actually exist.
Click to expand...

I don’t know either, it may or may not be a small minority. But you will also have people who have retired early, living off of a modest income in an expensive home.

I think the point is that this is a blunt tool - maybe that’s what’s needed.
 
The first thing that should be done is asset strip every bent bastard awarded a contract by bodybag boris and his cabal of thieving cocksnots over the last 12 months, then follow that up by doing the same to the people who awarded them the contracts. Next move onto the royals and assorted aristocracy. Wouldnt make a huge dent in it, but its a start.
 
Volumiza said:
Holy sh*t! :eek: That's good going.
Click to expand...

Its also not true (or rather, I dont know what @esmufc07 's mate is getting, but thats not how the Alpha scheme works). I was curious after that post so I looked it up, check the Civil Service Pensions site.
 
RedRover said:
I don't think it's about being wealthy or not. For me (and I appreciate it may be different for others) the idea of living long term in someone else's house (over which I am likely to have little control, nor the will to invest in or improve) isn't appealing. The first house my wife and I bought was nothing flash, but it was ours to do with what we pleased in terms of decoration or renovation. It was a home and a major stepping stone in our lives.

Now, we have a family home and it's value to us is more than bricks and mortar, but also I know that barring any major disasters (of which I have no control) it's a sound investment on which we'll make a return when we downsize to something smaller when we're older. We've probably gained £30 - £40k in equity in the property since we bought it 5 years ago and had (and have) the benefit of living in it.

Personally, I would rather have a house of my own than money in the bank. And to pick up your point, most people who "own" an expensive house won't own it for decades, they're just able to borrow huge sums a sensible interest rates to fund it. If I had a £150k car and £30k watch I wouldn't think I was wealthy if I didn't own them outright.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that people prefer owning, but what I'm getting at is that someone who owns a 500k home with no mortgage is just as wealthy as someone with 500k in the bank (or Tesla and obscure cryptocurrencies, going by the Caf's style), yet people would be much more ready to call the latter person wealthy.

Which, fine, but then you also have the fact that a lot of people want to be wealthy. The motivation to actually get wealthy differ widely, of course. But, my point is that there's this weird duality going on. People want to be wealthy but at the same time they deny their obvious wealth because they happen to live in it. I'm talking about people with no/low mortgage here.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yeah, I agree that people prefer owning, but what I'm getting at is that someone who owns a 500k home with no mortgage is just as wealthy as someone with 500k in the bank (or Tesla and obscure cryptocurrencies, going by the Caf's style), yet people would be much more ready to call the latter person wealthy.

Which, fine, but then you also have the fact that a lot of people want to be wealthy. The motivation to actually get wealthy differ widely, of course. But, my point is that there's this weird duality going on. People want to be wealthy but at the same time they deny their obvious wealth because they happen to live in it. I'm talking about people with no/low mortgage here.
Click to expand...
Only in a very narrow sense.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yeah, I agree that people prefer owning, but what I'm getting at is that someone who owns a 500k home with no mortgage is just as wealthy as someone with 500k in the bank (or Tesla and obscure cryptocurrencies, going by the Caf's style), yet people would be much more ready to call the latter person wealthy.

Which, fine, but then you also have the fact that a lot of people want to be wealthy. The motivation to actually get wealthy differ widely, of course. But, my point is that there's this weird duality going on. People want to be wealthy but at the same time they deny their obvious wealth because they happen to live in it. I'm talking about people with no/low mortgage here.
Click to expand...

Do you know many people like that? I know one person under the age of 50 who lives in a nice house and owns it, and he inherited it (and it's not worth £500k).

Its obviously sensible to pay your mortgage of earlier if you can for the money you save on interest, but I suspect the vast majority of people pay it off at whatever monthly sum they've agreed from time time with the lender, at least until they're in late middle age when they might pay a chunk off. Most people I know live to their means, and as such, the more upwardly mobile they become the bigger house they buy (to a point) essentially taking on more debt to fund it. They're actually no richer in real terms, day to day, they simply have higher overheads.

Also, perhaps it's living in the north east, but I don't know many people who could borrow the money to buy a £500k plus house in terms of cash loan to value, or salary. I could buy a house of that value now, but I'd be stretched and I'm a Partner in a law firm so do ok. Different in London of course but then a £500k house in London is nothing flash and as such, I could see why someone living in one wouldn't perceive themselves as wealthy.
 
Jippy said:
Only in a very narrow sense.
Click to expand...

And I think you'd also find that a lot of people with £500k in the bank would probably own a home. It's be an odd thing to do (in my opinion) to save that much money and not have a house - unless of course you had reason, such as working abroad.
 
RedRover said:
And I think you'd also find that a lot of people with £500k in the bank would probably own a home. It's be an odd thing to do (in my opinion) to save that much money and not have a house - unless of course you had reason, such as working abroad.
Click to expand...
Or inheriting, but yeah would be odd. I hate the argument cash left 'idle' should be taxed. God forbid anyone puts some away for emergencies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.