Autumn Budget 2022

delta0 said:
A real race to the bottom. Land will just be worthless until someone changes the tax and some rich person will just buy it all. How will someone with no or not enough income pay for it? It’s not their fault if the price has increased when they have lived in an area for the last 20-30 years.
Click to expand...

I guess it would be value at time of purchase. If you taxed someone more and more because they were in an up and coming area they may well be forced out.


I think our tax system isn't too bad and only needs a bit of a swing to wealth.

I certainly wouldn't want to focus solely on wealth or any other metric. I think a balanced system is right.


I like the income tax model as it takes the poorest out of tax. You can argue what the barriers should be. But as a principle I don't think it's too bad.

Nor do I think council tax (more expensive property.. More tax) is that bad.


Not sure I'm keen on stamp duty rather than increase in CT. One makes staying put better, the other means moving is less expensive.
For sure personally I'd rather stamp duty was shifted to CT as I would like to move around a bit more. But it's so expensive.
 
dLockers said:
Why would you conflate all of those things?

Someone who can't afford the place they live, whether they are on NMW or £100k a year, should cut their cloth accordingly. Too many old boomers living in prime property that is preventing others from progressing. Then these crappy old poorly maintained homes are what we have as part of the housing stock.
Click to expand...

Very much so. Just because you could afford a 700k property. Doesn't give you entitlement to support to keep that.
As we get wealthier we upgrade. But nothing wrong with downgrading.

Actually it should be encouraged. Older people in these huge homes. Fine if you can afford it. But there's nothing wrong having to downsize. Circumstances change.
 
n111ck said:
so you are adding even more complexity - again, how is this being funded?

none of my criticisms are complex lol - how are you tracking crypto?

what are you doing with people that refuse to engage with this process?
Click to expand...

Its not complex ffs.
I take it you really have no idea how many taxes there are, how they are managed and tracked and processed etc.

I wouldnt be tracking crypto, those who owned crypto would be responsible for self declaring with their other assets in the relevant section.
Just as they do now when they declare the profit if it is above the minimum level needed for reporting.

People that refuse to engage with the process, seriously, throw them in jail.
Complying with UK law is not optional, well for most ;)

Now seeing as I have been over and over answering your questions why not have a go yourself.

I repeat. "Why do you think someone asset rich, but cash poor should not pay their way in the UK we live in?"
 
n111ck said:
This could push someone into renting because it's cheaper than paying this 'politics of envy tax'... how progressive..
Click to expand...

Again, its not a politics of envy tax at all.
I said from the beginning, balance the current levels of tax.

If your putting up/creating wealth taxes you should be simultaneously lowering income taxes. Hence why I said youngsters would typically pay less since they would pay tax in income and not on wealth as they would have very little wealth.
 
413x said:
I guess it would be value at time of purchase. If you taxed someone more and more because they were in an up and coming area they may well be forced out.


I think our tax system isn't too bad and only needs a bit of a swing to wealth.

I certainly wouldn't want to focus solely on wealth or any other metric. I think a balanced system is right.


I like the income tax model as it takes the poorest out of tax. You can argue what the barriers should be. But as a principle I don't think it's too bad.

Nor do I think council tax (more expensive property.. More tax) is that bad.


Not sure I'm keen on stamp duty rather than increase in CT. One makes staying put better, the other means moving is less expensive.
For sure personally I'd rather stamp duty was shifted to CT as I would like to move around a bit more. But it's so expensive.
Click to expand...

Stamp duty is a terribly implemented tax.
It should be a lifetime tax, so if you have to pay £10k to buy your current house and your next would be £20k then you pay the net.
More than one party on the deeds the taxes paid are shared out accordingly. But no refund, so if you downsize later in life to a property that is cheaper for SD then you pay no SD on that transaction.

Obviously if the rate changes you may make a minor move, but see a high charge still, some luck in timing required just like now.
But at least that way temporary benefits of eg a SD holiday will catch up with you later if you move again and there is no holiday. (righting the wrong so to speak)
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Stamp duty is a terribly implemented tax.
It should be a lifetime tax, so if you have to pay £10k to buy your current house and your next would be £20k then you pay the net.
More than one party on the deeds the taxes paid are shared out accordingly. But no refund, so if you downsize later in life to a property that is cheaper for SD then you pay no SD on that transaction.

Obviously if the rate changes you may make a minor move, but see a high charge still, some luck in timing required just like now.
But at least that way temporary benefits of eg a SD holiday will catch up with you later if you move again and there is no holiday. (righting the wrong so to speak)
Click to expand...

That would be a sensible compromise with income tax style bands.

If you buy a second house, then let's say first house is 500k and second is 250k, you pay the 250k worth.
If the bandings were 500k-1mln you'd be paying tax within that band as your net property value is 750 k.


Better than current system. But doesn't scrap it entirely


I have no issue with down sizing/down pricing for free. Often you are down sizing/down pricing due to difficulties, age etc. When you shouldn't be penalised by stamp duty
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Its not complex ffs.
I take it you really have no idea how many taxes there are, how they are managed and tracked and processed etc.

I wouldnt be tracking crypto, those who owned crypto would be responsible for self declaring with their other assets in the relevant section.
Just as they do now when they declare the profit if it is above the minimum level needed for reporting.

People that refuse to engage with the process, seriously, throw them in jail.
Complying with UK law is not optional, well for most ;)

Now seeing as I have been over and over answering your questions why not have a go yourself.

I repeat. "Why do you think someone asset rich, but cash poor should not pay their way in the UK we live in?"
Click to expand...


You are adding massive complexity and significantly increasing the burden on the tax office not to mention having some of it a trust based system (paying tax on crypto lol) potentially throwing people that aren't used to even having to engage with the tax man in jail. Sounds great.

Still no comment on how you would fund this?
 
n111ck said:
You are adding massive complexity and significantly increasing the burden on the tax office not to mention having some of it a trust based system (paying tax on crypto lol) potentially throwing people that aren't used to even having to engage with the tax man in jail. Sounds great.

Still no comment on how you would fund this?
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for you to respond.

Go on have a go
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I repeat. "Why do you think someone asset rich, but cash poor should not pay their way in the UK we live in?"
Click to expand...


Just spotted this within your vomit of words..

- Assets dont equate to income or ability to pay - quite the reverse in some cases..

- Assets should be taxed at the point of purchase

- Effectively having to pay 'rent' to the government for a house that you own is absurd particularly if you inherited it but work in McDonald's..
 
n111ck said:
Just spotted this within your vomit of words..

- Assets dont equate to income or ability to pay - quite the reverse in some cases..

- Assets should be taxed at the point of purchase

- Effectively having to pay 'rent' to the government for a house that you own is absurd particularly if you inherited it but work in McDonald's..
Click to expand...

Again I never said assets equate to the ability to pay, in fact I specifically said they didn't citing the case of the infamous granny in her mansion on state pension

But I think this conversation is done. You seem to fundamentally have a different view in what an evolution to taxing wealth as opposed to income would entail and how its fairer to tax that wealth accumulation that often happens without being taxed than purely income only.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Again I never said assets equate to the ability to pay, in fact I specifically said they didn't citing the case of the infamous granny in her mansion on state pension

But I think this conversation is done. You seem to fundamentally have a different view in what an evolution to taxing wealth as opposed to income would entail and how its fairer to tax that wealth accumulation that often happens without being taxed than purely income only.
Click to expand...

Well before you go just confirm how you would fund your system..
 
n111ck said:
Well before you go just confirm how you would fund your system..
Click to expand...

Sure, ive said it more than once. Sorry maybe I added a bit too much detail per post for you to cope with

The target tax take would be equal to now. There would be a balance between income taxes, wealth taxes and consumption taxes.
Hence why I said right from the start how younger and pensioners would pay less, younger middle aged about the same and late middle aged more.
Because generally thats the pattern on how income and wealth are earned and accumulated.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Sure, ive said it more than once. Sorry maybe I added a bit too much detail per post for you to cope with

The target tax take would be equal to now. There would be a balance between income taxes, wealth taxes and consumption taxes.
Hence why I said right from the start how younger and pensioners would pay less, younger middle aged about the same and late middle aged more.
Because generally thats the pattern on how income and wealth are earned and accumulated.
Click to expand...
Lol so the tax take would be the same but the collection method would be much more expensive… and you cant see the fatal flaw with that??

Accountant lol
 
n111ck said:
Lol so the tax take would be the same but the collection method would be much more expensive… and you cant see the fatal flaw with that??

Accountant lol
Click to expand...

Why do you think it would be a lot more expensive?

There is a massive amount of data HMRC collect constantly.
And then every persons is reviewed anyway, often more than once annually. That happens now even for those on simple PAYE.

Again, its pretty clear you have no idea and are assuming a lot of incorrect positions here.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Sure, ive said it more than once. Sorry maybe I added a bit too much detail per post for you to cope with

The target tax take would be equal to now. There would be a balance between income taxes, wealth taxes and consumption taxes.
Hence why I said right from the start how younger and pensioners would pay less, younger middle aged about the same and late middle aged more.
Because generally thats the pattern on how income and wealth are earned and accumulated.
Click to expand...
I believe you need to add a lol at the end of every sentence so he can better break it down. (lol)
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Why do you think it would be a lot more expensive?

There is a massive amount of data HMRC collect constantly.
And then every persons is reviewed anyway, often more than once annually. That happens now even for those on simple PAYE.

Again, its pretty clear you have no idea and are assuming a lot of incorrect positions here.
Click to expand...
Haha ignoring how inefficient the civil service is you are adding millions more into actual assessments some of which is based on trust and which could result in prison sentences and you think that could be absorbed into current budgets?

Diane Abbot is that you? Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom