Chancellor may tax older taxpayers more than younger.

Destination · 18 Oct 2017 at 22:08

Dj_Jestar said:
House crash? What house crash?

The one that happens outside the area propped up by foreign purchases and investments.
The evening news lead with the story last night, outside of London house prices remain below where they were in the vast majority of places.

D.P. · 18 Oct 2017 at 22:08

danielanthony said:
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.

I live and work in the US, paying US taxes. Believe me, the differences are not that big unless you you look at say just federal marginal rate. At the 45% band in the UK you would get the 33% Federal tax, 8-10% state taxes and around 10% social taxes. The personal allowance in the US is only $4K. You then have property taxes, typcially around 1% at least. Live somewhere like Boston and if you own a home, which will cost $1mn or more and you loose another 10K in taxes.

If you are lucky you might be 5-8% better off in the US form a tax position, but with reduced services.

Dj_Jestar · 18 Oct 2017 at 23:13

Hikari Kisugi said:
The one that happens outside the area
propped up by foreign purchases and investments.
The evening news lead with the story last night, outside of London house prices remain below where they were in the vast majority of places.

So that would be the "crash" that wasn't a crash at all?

and as seen here, the "propped up by foreign investor" market was hit hardest:

The_Abyss · 19 Oct 2017 at 06:25

cheesyboy said:
Sounds like Semantics again to me.

And sounds like either ignorance or a wilful lack of understanding to me. Each to their own.

Destination · 19 Oct 2017 at 07:27

Dj_Jestar said:
So that would be the "crash" that wasn't a crash at all?

and as seen here, the "propped up by foreign investor" market was hit hardest:

Those graphs show outside of london things have been flat for the past ten years, which was my point. Thise who bought in that time period haven’t made a fortune out of the value of their properties. Only in london have prices rose over the period.

Now if one is of the generation ahead, then you will have made a killing. Which was my point.

dowie · 19 Oct 2017 at 07:32

Hikari Kisugi said:
Those graphs show outside of london things have been flat for the past ten years, which was my point. Thise who bought in that time period haven’t made a fortune out of the value of their properties. Only in london have prices rose over the period.

indeed, also the first amateur graph is rather dubious, apparently prices were at zero in 1952, plus there is some unlabelled curve fitted on top

I'm not really sure what his argument is re: their not being a crash, there clearly was, it had a significant effect on people's lives and it didn't require a return to 'zero'

Freakbro · 19 Oct 2017 at 08:31

dowie said:
indeed, also the first amateur graph is rather dubious, apparently prices were at zero in 1952

Nah, it's just on the scale of that graph the thickness of the line is virtually more than the average house price in 1952, which was under £2,000 (non-adjusted for inflation of course)

dowie · 19 Oct 2017 at 08:35

Freakbro said:
Nah, it's just on the scale of that graph the thickness of the line is more than the average house price in 1952, which was under £2,000 (non-adjusted for inflation of course)

nah it is a naff graph was the point, never mind line thickness it doesn't even extend to the y axis ergo zero!, I know house prices were low back then - was just criticising the graph for being badly drawn and having some spurious curve dumped on top

Dj_Jestar · 19 Oct 2017 at 09:29

Spurious curve?!? It's the trend line. You don't know what a trend line is?!

And it's clearly not zero in 1952, too. Dowie in "shows incompetence" shocker.

dowie · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:00

Dj_Jestar said:
Spurious curve?!? It's the trend line. You don't know what a trend line is?!

And it's clearly not zero in 1952, too. Dowie in "shows incompetence" shocker.

clearly is zero on that graph as your line doesn't extend to the axis... literally isn't present in 1952.. but anyway that is just a minor quibble about naff presentation

It doesn't look like a trend line! But for the sake of argument please can you tell me what exactly has been fitted there as a 'trend line'? Obviously I can guess that a polynomial of some order has been fitted but I don't see why it is particularly useful in this instance.

while we're at it it might be better if the prices were at least adjusted for inflation, you'll still see a significant increase as the mortgage market has matured significantly and rates are currently rather low but it would be a fairer reflection

Dj_Jestar · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:13

"Not on the graph" does not mean zero. It means "no data present".

And it's a trend line. It's obviously the trend line. It's showing the exponential growth housing has had over the last 50 years.

dowie · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:16

Dj_Jestar said:
"Not on the graph" does not mean zero. It means "no data".

I don't think you understand, the data is available in the dataset they've cited, it is the date the nationwide data starts from, the graph is just badly drawn.. why start it from 1952 if there is no data for 1952? Anyway that, as I said before, is a minor quibble. You seem to have dodged the question about the seemingly random and unlabelled curve yet ironically were happy enough to reply to me in a patronising way and call me incompetent?

Dj_Jestar · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:19

Yes, you are incompetent, because that is the very obvious trend that has been shown to be a curve.

dowie · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:21

Dj_Jestar said:
Yes, you are incompetent, because that is the very obvious trend that has been shown to be a curve.

You said that before yet you're still unable to answer what it is and why?

Dj_Jestar said:
And it's a trend line. It's obviously the trend line. It's showing the exponential growth housing has had over the last 50 years.

Replying to your edit - what exactly is 'the trend line' that has been drawn here? That's what I'm asking. Despite your claim that it is obvious you're unable to answer.

Dj_Jestar · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:22

Because it's the trend. :confused:

What else do you need to know, dowie? The trend. You know. The trend. An exponential upward trend. Do you need a dictionary definition or something?

Gixer · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:24

D.P. said:
Depends on definitions of older and younger, however a young family trying to save up enough to buy a hours while raising 2 kids has many more expenses than a 55 year old at the peek of their career with their children left the nest. On that ground it is reasonable to have differing tax rates. However, I believe there are better ways of achieving this than purely age., because what if you are a 55 year old starting a new family and desperately trying to make ends, etc.

Increase the tax free allowance to 18K. Increase the deductions for dependents/children. Allow some part of rent to be tax deductible. Increase all tax bands by 2-3%. Add a 0.5% wealth tax on capital over 100K.

This way everyone can share the same benefits regardless of age.

The age at which people are having family is getting older too though. I'm 40 next March but, all being well, my 1st child is due next month so things are going to get tougher for me at what may be considered older? as you say it does depend on at what age older begins however you can have a child at any age as long as the body allows it. Tricky balance to find if you ask me. There is never going to be a solution that'll work for everyone so things will simply keep changing as someone will always be complaining.

dowie · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:26

Dj_Jestar said:
Because it's the trend. What else do you need to know, dowie? The trend. You know. The trend. An exponential upward trend. Do you need a dictionary definition or something?

No I don't know for sure (I can guess as I have already done) a dictionary won't help here. If you're claiming to know then why is it 'the trend'? You've still not even explained what it is yet - despite claiming it is 'obvious' you apparently don't know yourself what has actually been fitted there.

Dj_Jestar · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:40

You only need to use your eyes to see it is an apt curve for the upward trend of house prices. Unless you're back in land dowie where things can just be ignored because you want to. Like your weird notion of how laws are optional.

dowie · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:43

Dj_Jestar said:
You only need to use your eyes to see it is an apt curve for the upward trend of house prices. Unless you're back in land dowie where things can just be ignored because you want to.

Look, I've been pretty polite and I've asked what are fairly reasonable questions and given pretty reasonable criticism. You're giving rather hostile responses while simultaneously demonstrating that you seemingly don't actually know. I'm not ignoring anything, I'm simply asking why that curve and what is it? If you don't know then why not say so, just repeating that it is a 'trend line' or throwing in silly comments about me being 'incompetent' or in 'land dowie' isn't really adding anything. You either know and are able to answer or you don't and you can carry on with the pointless hostility and Ad hominem posts.

I'm more than happy for you to assume I'm incompetent if you like, you can explain to me how it has been constructed and why as though I'm a 5 year old, but it is the explanation I'm after not hostile posts and statements that 'it's a trend line' which still doesn't explain anything.

Dj_Jestar · 19 Oct 2017 at 10:52

You only need to use your eyes to see it is an apt curve for the upward trend of house prices.