Cypriot Austerity Measures

dowie said:
With IHT you're dead and don't really have much need for your assets anyway.... :confused:

You want to impose a mansion tax on someone who's paid tax on their income and acquired that asset themselves but you don't agree with someone simply being given/inheriting a substantial asset and having to pay a tax.
Click to expand...

It is about being able to afford, if someone received a home from inheritance they have the option to sell it or pay the high council tax. Its simple if you can't afford it sell it. There is a very big difference between INT and council tax, why should others pay more for a lesser home while others pay less for a much better home.
The assets received via IHT have already been taxed multiple times, if you sell it you pay capital gains if you keep it you pay nothing, but pay the council tax according to the weights of the property, just like vat according to the price. And how many poor pensioners live in million pound homes? hardly any. This is just a way to get people to side with them.
 
Last edited:
Dolph is right when he says this is just another form of taxation, it's pretty shocking for us because for decades in this country wealth has hardly been taxed at all (inheritence and council tax are the only ones I think). Everything else has either been a tax on consumption or on income, which is what we're used to.

You know, in the grand scheme of things, a one-off 10% savings tax isn't that bad. In the 70s in this country there were people who lived off their savings that were wiped out completely by inflation. I can't remember the name for them but they had a big campaign for sympathy and charity which they didn't get as quite often they'd never worked in their lives.
 
matdom said:
It is about being able to afford, if someone received a home from inheritance they have the option to sell it or pay the high council tax. Its simple if you can't afford it sell it. There is a very big difference between INT and council tax, why should others pay more for a lesser home while others pay less for a much better home.
The assets received via IHT have already been taxed multiple times, if you sell it you pay capital gains if you keep it you pay nothing, but pay the council tax according to the weights of the property, just like vat according to the price. And how many poor pensioners live in million pound homes? hardly any. This is just a way to get people to side with them.
Click to expand...

It's probably quite possible if they've had a home in London for a long time. The price inflation of london has been largely ridiclous and house pricing itself is entirly arbitrary.
 
matdom said:
The assets received via IHT have already been taxed multiple times, if you sell it you pay capital gains if you keep it you pay nothing, but pay the council tax according to the weights of the property, just like vat according to the price. And how many poor pensioners live in million pound homes? hardly any. This is just a way to get people to side with them.
Click to expand...

You pay IHT regardless of whether you liquidate all the assets in the estate AFAIK... Someone is gaining an asset for free that they've not necessarily paid any tax on or contributed to.
Its the principle really you should tax an asset like that when its transferred rather than on an ongoing basis - its not producing any income so there shouldn't be anything to tax unless its sold or passed on.

If you want to redistribute wealth in society then IHT would be a fairer place to hit people - with IHT you're targeting wealth that hasn't been earned rather than penalising wealth creators.
 
aln said:
Personally I think thats terrible. You work all your life, buy a house, make it your home, become part of the community. Your partener dies, you retire, we'll take your house. Seems like an awful thing to do.

You've already been taxed on the income you used to buy said house, it seems like double dipping to be taxed on it over and over again. And while I can understand the council provides services, only really bin removal makes me think it's something that should be paid for by property owners.

If we are going to tax property, we should tax unused property. Not some old dear for wanting to remain in the family home.
Click to expand...

I can understand this argument but don't agree,

What you are encouraging is people to plough all their money into property and then subsidising their tax responsibilities.
I think this increases or maintains high house prices effectively taxing the upcoming generations.

The old dear probably under utilises the house .

The tax system can be used to encourage behaviours.

I agree that empty houses should be heavily taxed to encourage utilisation.
 
dowie said:
You pay IHT regardless of whether you liquidate all the assets in the estate AFAIK... Someone is gaining an asset for free that they've not necessarily paid any tax on or contributed to.
Its the principle really you should tax an asset like that when its transferred rather than on an ongoing basis - its not producing any income so there shouldn't be anything to tax unless its sold or passed on.

If you want to redistribute wealth in society then IHT would be a fairer place to hit people - with IHT you're targeting wealth that hasn't been earned rather than penalising wealth creators.
Click to expand...

LOL the very wealthy do not pay IHT.
 
Spektor said:
Is it not hers to under utilize?
Click to expand...

Apparently not, silly bitch should move to that 1 bed dross flat in a poorer part of town. Why would she want to stay in a house that may be full of great memories of her life, that they worked hard to pay for and so on, nope off you go.

It is so easy for other people to make decisions for you as they dont affect you in the same way, it's called empathy and you should get some from somewhere or at least be prepared for other people to make similar decisions for you as you get older. Never forget some of these crappy things could end up affecting you as well.
 
Reemul said:
Apparently not, silly bitch should move to that 1 bed dross flat in a poorer part of town. Why would she want to stay in a house that may be full of great memories of her life, that they worked hard to pay for and so on, nope off you go.
Click to expand...

If she owns it surely she is unaffected by 'bedroom tax'.
 
[TW]Fox;23955816 said:
How?
Click to expand...

You'll probably regret asking that, there is no answer that actually has any correct application of facts and logic, so it will either be completely irrational, massively ignorant or magnificiantly dishonest to support the 'cutting benefits is a tax' position.
PHP:
 
Slam62 said:
I can understand this argument but don't agree,

What you are encouraging is people to plough all their money into property and then subsidising their tax responsibilities.
I think this increases or maintains high house prices effectively taxing the upcoming generations.

The old dear probably under utilises the house .

The tax system can be used to encourage behaviours.

I agree that empty houses should be heavily taxed to encourage utilisation.
Click to expand...

I don't think the house matters all that much, it's the land. Expanding on the empty houses idea, each person should be allowed a certain amount of land to live on tax free that can be considered as being used. They can only have one domicile though, tax anything above. You'll also catch mansion owners on the basis they'll have a lot of land in the first place.

I don't think theres anything wrong with one family unit being able to keep their habitat tax free. The idea you need to pay to life completely sucks in my opinion. I can probably agree that one should encourage them to get rid of anything excessive. Technically you could also kill of landlonds using the same method, manipulating house prices downwards.

I must admit though, this does come down to my desire to buy a wee detached cottage to live in as my retirement plan. :p
 
Last edited:
Reemul said:
Apparently not, silly bitch should move to that 1 bed dross flat in a poorer part of town. Why would she want to stay in a house that may be full of great memories of her life, that they worked hard to pay for and so on, nope off you go.

It is so easy for other people to make decisions for you as they dont affect you in the same way, it's called empathy and you should get some from somewhere or at least be prepared for other people to make similar decisions for you as you get older. Never forget some of these crappy things could end up affecting you as well.
Click to expand...

The reality is that she will have paid a fraction of the value of the house and she could easily move to more manageable accommodation.

Things don't last forever, at some point the old have to make way for the younger generation.

In return the young look after the old.

The real issue is the amount of money tied up in property, this needs to be invested in production.
 
I'm getting 2.8% at Santander for this year. Not going to bother with a cash ISA next year, just going to plow it all into a S&S ISA.
 
It's not just taxes, it's savings. Basically, money you put away for hard times, or on a mortgage. Isn't that what people were suppose to do in the first place?

So yeah, this is completely arbitrary, hits the wrong people, will eventually hit the banks, and is nothing more than daylight robbery. Completely bonkers. You don't **** your money down the drains, you invest your money in the banks, a pension, and that's your reward.

SBB5NBe.gif.png


I know, suckers, right? So yeah, if that's the signs of things to come, the system is hopelessly broken. To the barricades!
 
Reemul said:
Apparently not, silly bitch should move to that 1 bed dross flat in a poorer part of town. Why would she want to stay in a house that may be full of great memories of her life, that they worked hard to pay for and so on, nope off you go.

It is so easy for other people to make decisions for you as they dont affect you in the same way, it's called empathy and you should get some from somewhere or at least be prepared for other people to make similar decisions for you as you get older. Never forget some of these crappy things could end up affecting you as well.
Click to expand...

Well so I have to pay more so that she can pay less based on weights, how is that fair? everyone should pay according to there wealth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom