It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Uk Mansion tax. I have no problems with this, would you?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The labour party are proposing a new tax if elected, not something I am normally fond of but tis one sounds good to me.

In simple terms any house worth more than 2 million gbp will incour an additional tax of around £250 per month.

Anyone living in a house worth over 2 million but with an income of less than £42,000 per year can defer payment until the house is sold.

To give you an idea I live in the south west where house prices are quite high and this is an example of what you get for around 2 million quid.

Mansion for sale

Do you agree? disagree? and if UK based what would you get for that kind of money?

I understand that London will get pretty hard but if you have that kind of cash then...

They propose using the additional funds to bolster the National health service.
edit on 1120141143pAmerica/Chicago2014-11-19T11:54:43-06:0054f54 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I'm for it pal.


Only people against it so far have been celebrities and politicians.

No surprise there imo.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Not sure how it works in the UK, but in the US someone with a 2+ million dollar house would already be paying some hefty property taxes on it, so no, I would not agree.

Also, how does a rich person paying more taxes to the government directly benefit you? Maybe 1% of that tax might go to social programs for the poor, the rest probably gets wasted on who knows what.
edit on 19-11-2014 by eeyipes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I take it you do not live in a multimillion pound house then?


a reply to: CharlieSpeirs



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The property tax band has a top rate value of £320,000 so it is not really a fair system for very expensive properties.

to give perspective the property in the OP would pay the same amount of council tax as this one in the same area.

link

a reply to: eeyipes


edit on 1120141118pAmerica/Chicago2014-11-19T12:03:18-06:0003f03 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
The house in your link looks lovely, but it also looks like it needs a lot of work. Built in 1841 ... as a former owner of a slightly newer home (1909) that was less than half the size (2700 sq ft), I can testify that old houses are bottomless money pits, although worth the love. I'd give that buyer a break on the taxes, he'll probably need it.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: nonspecific

I'm for it pal.


Only people against it so far have been celebrities and politicians.

No surprise there imo.


Which is ironic, being that they are the ones telling everyone else we need to lower our carbon foot print!



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

No not yet mate



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
So what would you get for that kind of money in your area? The price would be between $3.2 million and $4.8 million the tax would be around $100 a week.

If you had the time I would love you to put a property for sale link so we can get some perspective on this!

a reply to: eeyipes



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I do agree with mansion tax as I am sick of this government slyly upping and upping costs that affect the poor and ordinary people living on the minimum wage in this country. I know the wealthy have been buying up the bankrupt properties that many hard working people have been swindled out for various reasons and many probably have huge portfolios of property. I don't know if they pay a mansion tax on the full amount of all the properties they own but I think this should be brought into the equation also if it is not a part of the mansion tax.

Its cameron who hates the idea of mansion taxes for his rich buddies and of course we have queenie and the royals, whose main home for official business could be tax exempt but their other mansions surely should be liable for mansion tax. Charlie earns about 17 million from his duchy businesses and should therefore not blur the royal expenses with his duchy expenses but apparently one irate gentleman told the tv that he is a past master at this which is defrauding the tax man of much needed revenue for our country to function. With his wealth it amazes me he thinks he might be sort of money.

We also have people like rothschild and his castles and a number of others whose houses would being in some welcome revenue. It would also make it fairer for people from abroad who invest in property in this country and price people living here out of homes. The difference in the london property market and the rest of the UK bearing in mind how much london boroughs are subsidised by council tax collected from outside london should certainly be made to pay mansion tax over a certain amount because no where else is there such a disparity between house prices and it might also bring down and control the property market.

What still gets me are the people who still pay no tax in this country such as ceos who live here and own property here yet their money is in the virgin islands - also where queenie keeps a few bank accounts I read about, when some time ago she bailed out her nearly invisible youngest son on one of his financial blunders.

I have no problem with mansion tax especially as I saw they were going to hit pensioners again with cuts as cameron and his smug side kick osborne have messed up yet again on this country's finances. Certainly all for the greater good of telling everyone how well the conservatives have done in pulling this country out of negative growth ! Most families here will tell you they are seeing negative growth in their disposable income.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Well this might not be a good comparison because I didn't take the time to convert pounds to dollars, but here's the first 2mil house I found ... I think I could live there comfortably, LOL.

2 mil in Parker, Colorado

Doing that pounds to dollars conversion might get you this ...

3.5-4 mil house

Now my old house was in a rural area, I don't think you'd find any 2 million dollar houses there, not unless there was a lot of acreage attached. But prices were cheeeeap.

Oh and I thought I'd add, of the 3 houses linked ... I'd go for the ole' 1841

edit on 19-11-2014 by eeyipes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

If you ever become a millionaire, would you pay this tax with such enthusiasm? Wealth does not make you evil by default. EVERY consumer should pay a standard flat consumer tax rate. That way, you are only taxed by what you consume, not income, not annual property tax. If you can get by without buying, you dont pay taxes.

That is true equality.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
So if you could afford the house in your link then an extra $100 a week would not make to much of a dent in the old bank account then?

a reply to: eeyipes



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Well said pal.


Hit the nail on the head!



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I never accused anyone of bieng evil, and If I were to become a millionare then I could not afford to buy a 2 million pound house.

If I could afford a property of this stature then I would not have a problem with the tax.

As I said in an earlier post the current tax is capped at £320,000 so these properties are around 6 times the price of there counterparts.

The tax equates to around £60 per week so really is not that much of a big deal in my opinion.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
No, it's not the money I'm opposed to. That is negligible. I'm opposed to paying it in taxes - I have absolutely no faith in the government to use it with even a little bit of intelligence. I have serious doubts that those extra taxes will benefit the people that need it the most. I would rather that rich person hire an extra groundskeeper or maid, or donate it to the local food bank or homeless charity.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Not a Brit here...so its not relevant to me....

But i would have a problem with it. Didn't you guys have a tax added in a couple of years back relating to the number of bedrooms you have? From the point of view of a plebe, I have to ask: why does the government need another pay increase? If they want more tax revenue, then do their part: improve the economy and create more exchanging of money. That is how a government should improve its tax base. Not be inventing a new and novel way to squeeze more blood from turnips.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Life is too short to worry about insignificant things like taxes. I think about them once a year when I file and submit my payment information, if I owe anything additional. Outside of that, not a seconds thought goes into taxes.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The tax you are reffereing to was not a tax as such and this new one is kind of the opposite in some ways.

The "Bedroom tax" was for people on benifits in social housing. If you lived in social housing and had a spare room Ie a couple living on disability in a two bedroom bungalow then you had to pay or take a benefit cut because you had more bedrooms than you needed.

It was scrapped after universal backlash from nearly everybody and swept under the carpet as yet another failed attempt to punish the poor.

To put this in perspective the house I listed in the op is around 6 miles away from me, In a ten mile radius there are around a dozen of them.

The additional tax per week would be around 2 hours work for a qualified electrician who could never afford to live there.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Yes I'd impliment it for sure.
The rich shoukd bear the heaviest burden.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join