Chancellor may tax older taxpayers more than younger.

It would be nice if they went after the people which huge portfolios of houses that they rent out, but I suppose that would affect a good number of MP's so that's not going to happen.
 
MikeTheNative said:
It would be nice if they went after the people which huge portfolios of houses that they rent out, but I suppose that would affect a good number of MP's so that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

they already have - see mortgage interest relief changes, stamp duty changes etc..
 
cheesyboy said:
What's the practical difference of an actual social tax, and a structural situation where young people pay more than older people, in such a way that their act of paying actually transfers wealth to those older people?
Click to expand...

A tax would be explicitly set and collected by government.

cheesyboy said:
And if a proposed tax on the old might help address this wealth transfer, why should it be considered 'unfair'?
Click to expand...

I didn't offer any opinion on the matter, other than in a previous post where I said that if pension tax relief was used as the tool to achieve this then it would likely decrease rates of retirement saving.
 
The Government are not private hands is what (or to continue your analogy, "The Government" != "The old people".) Stop looking at it from such a self centred viewpoint please.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
The Government are not private hands is what (or to continue your analogy, "The Government" != "The old people".) Stop looking at it from such a self centred viewpoint please.
Click to expand...
That's still not a practical difference. The young are still just as poor, the old are still just as wealthy, and the outlay the young have to meet, in housing terms, is still contributing to that elderly wealth.

Read back to where this started.
 
antijoke said:
God I wish I could get an accountant to lift me out of paying to these ******* cretins.
Click to expand...
heh, get an accountant, they aren't very expensive for personal taxes at all. I ay about $200 to get my tax returns done.

Don't expect your taxes to drop much though, if you are a typical salaried employee without any additional business costs then there is really not much you can do to lower taxes. The easiest way is to make donations to charity.
 
danielanthony said:
Loving the simplistic view of the current state of taxation on this thread.

The Telegraph did an interesting piece recently about how the marginal rate of tax can be 10,000% when looking at the withdrawal of child benefit, withdrawing the personal allowance over 100k and the reduction in pension allowance over 150k. Plus the impact of National Insurance bands added to Income Tax making for an already highly taxed workforce.

If Corbyn did get in an whacked up the taxes for people on higher incomes, it'll be easier to convince my wife that a move to the states would be good for us, so that will be less tax for UKplc.

I think the best way to make the system fairer is to reduce the tax on earned income and instead tax assets such as land and property which cannot be hidden.
Click to expand...



Don't expect to pay less tax in the US unless you are a very high income earner, you need to be pulling in about $150-200K a year before you see real savings. At less than $100K you may find yourself paying more taxes in the US. Once you add federal, state, local, poperty and social taxes you will find a marginal rate higher than the UK with a lower personal allowance. State and Federal income tax will put you at 40% at least .

If you really want to lower your taxes move to Switzerland.
 
cheesyboy said:
That's still not a practical difference. The young are still just as poor, the old are still just as wealthy, and the outlay the young have to meet, in housing terms, is still contributing to that elderly wealth.

Read back to where this started.
Click to expand...
You either have a bizarre and completely incorrect definition of practical, or a bizarre and completely blinkered view on the world.

The Government would receive the money instead of private hands. That is the practical difference. Spelled out in clear and plain language. Yet you choose to ignore that and claim there is still no practical difference.
 
dowie said:
they already have - see mortgage interest relief changes, stamp duty changes etc..
Click to expand...

Mortgage interest tax relief only hit the chaps with a few houses, anyone with loads had them wrapped in an ltd, and wasn’t affected.
If i was in a position to buy another, i’d certainly do it from the bounds of an ltd.
 
Also there seems to be an opinion that exists that those over fourty had it easy.
I think folks have missed a generation somewhere.

Someone who is fourty, who bought at the age of say 25, has resided in a house boom and crash that negated any net benefit from housing. We have had a ten year period where wages have barely increased.
People at fourty are not significantly better off that those at 25.
They,ve also started working when most pensions kicked in at 60, yet now find, certain if it is a govt scheme, that they won’t receive their pension until stat, which for them is now 68.

At least those at twenty can have a bloody good idea that they’ll be working to 70. Rather than assume they will retire with their pension when they expected to.

I think any gap or division is set more for those who into their fifties, likely 55 and above.
They will find it hard to find a tax solution for the older groups that doesn’t smash the middle - yet again...
 
D.P. said:
Don't expect to pay less tax in the US unless you are a very high income earner, you need to be pulling in about $150-200K a year before you see real savings. At less than $100K you may find yourself paying more taxes in the US. Once you add federal, state, local, poperty and social taxes you will find a marginal rate higher than the UK with a lower personal allowance. State and Federal income tax will put you at 40% at least .

If you really want to lower your taxes move to Switzerland.
Click to expand...

I've spoken to some colleagues who live in Boston who say that their effective tax rate is about 15% after allowances, a lot lower than the headline rate. My UK salary puts me almost in the 45% band so I'm certainly helping to pay down the deficit, transferring to the US would incur a pay rise as the exchange rate now makes me 20% cheaper than my American peers.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
You either have a bizarre and completely incorrect definition of practical, or a bizarre and completely blinkered view on the world.

The Government would receive the money instead of private hands. That is the practical difference. Spelled out in clear and plain language. Yet you choose to ignore that and claim there is still no practical difference.
Click to expand...
I'm referring to it from the perspective of the citizens in question. the young have less cash through the transaction, and whether it is an actual tax or a structural pseudo tax makes no practical difference.

Whether the government takes the cash or not is not a practical implication, in the same way as to whom you pay your energy bills makes no practical difference, if pay you must.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Mortgage interest tax relief only hit the chaps with a few houses, anyone with loads had them wrapped in an ltd, and wasn’t affected.
If i was in a position to buy another, i’d certainly do it from the bounds of an ltd.
Click to expand...

I know - see post 53#and the subsequent ones - other potential issues there

(but yes, I'd do so too - albeit I'd not be interested in being a residential BTL landlord, commercial could be a cool side investment)
 
cheesyboy said:
I'm referring to it from the perspective of the citizens in question. the young have less cash through the transaction, and whether it is an actual tax or a structural pseudo tax makes no practical difference.

Whether the government takes the cash or not is not a practical implication, in the same way as to whom you pay your energy bills makes no practical difference, if pay you must.
Click to expand...

Except it isn’t a tax, irrespective of the same outcome being reached. Relevant in a thread where government taxation is being discussed.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Also there seems to be an opinion that exists that those over fourty had it easy.
I think folks have missed a generation somewhere.

Someone who is fourty, who bought at the age of say 25, has resided in a house boom and crash that negated any net benefit from housing. We have had a ten year period where wages have barely increased.
People at fourty are not significantly better off that those at 25.
They,ve also started working when most pensions kicked in at 60, yet now find, certain if it is a govt scheme, that they won’t receive their pension until stat, which for them is now 68.

At least those at twenty can have a bloody good idea that they’ll be working to 70. Rather than assume they will retire with their pension when they expected to.

I think any gap or division is set more for those who into their fifties, likely 55 and above.
They will find it hard to find a tax solution for the older groups that doesn’t smash the middle - yet again...
Click to expand...
House crash? What house crash?
 
cheesyboy said:
I'm referring to it from the perspective of the citizens in question. the young have less cash through the transaction, and whether it is an actual tax or a structural pseudo tax makes no practical difference.

Whether the government takes the cash or not is not a practical implication, in the same way as to whom you pay your energy bills makes no practical difference, if pay you must.
Click to expand...
So it is the terribly blinkered view I first suspected. Ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom