2015 Election

[unixman_again]

The Leeds candidate lost their deposit, although they recorded more votes than Kevin Phillips Bong

[elsiegee40]

Party political that you might actually enjoy - whether you agree with Green politics or not.

 

As reported by ITV: Green Party spoof turns party leaders into a boy band - ITV News

 

Edited April 8, 2015 by elsiegee40

[StevieM]

I think this is really funny and I would have loved it... if it had been on The Now Show, or similar. However, I have REAL difficulty when political parties of any colour feature their opponents (even satirical versions) in their campaign materials more than their own candidates or policies.

 

Negative campaigning has been a major factor in my decisions to spoil my ballot rather than vote in the past. The fact that the Greens have joined the throng and decided that this is the way to campaign has really disappointed me. Starting to wish I hadn't joined them now.

[flyinghaggis]

You're right, it's pretty annoying and off-putting when parties focus on undermining their opponents rather than stating what they would do policy-wise instead. It feels like the conservatives and their affiliated press have been spent more time indulging in a character assassination of Ed Milliband rather than saying what their plans are or trying to pick apart Labour's policies.

[Ephelyon]

Meh, hippies always did believe they could change the world with their music...

[pcstru]

Tax cuts for those struggling with £1,000,000 houses, yay! Thank goodness that after 5 years without a pay rise, at last we see we really are all in it together! Thanks Dave!

[elsiegee40]

Tax cuts for those struggling with £1,000,000 houses, yay! Thank goodness that after 5 years without a pay rise, at last we see we really are all in it together! Thanks Dave!

 

There is a flaw in the mansion tax. Not all those with expensive properties are cash rich... and not because they are tax evaders. The ridiculous property inflation in London and the South East in particular means there are many people in more modest properties with modest incomes that have become owners of highly valuable houses.

 

People owning nationally recognised properties of heritage value are already clobbered by death duties and now this too. These properties have been in their families for centuries and their assets are in the property not necessarily in cash. Those stately piles are their homes.

 

Ours has more than trebled in value in the 15 years we have owned it. It's a 4 bedroomed detached bought for £220k in a commuter town... not a mansion. At this rate it will exceed the £1m value in the next 5-10 years... i.e. the life of the next parliament... the thought scares me. There are many in houses just like ours in our town earning considerably less than we do. Our own children have no hope of ever buying a property round here without us popping our clogs.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are many high earners that pay pitiful amounts of tax and they need to pay their share. What I disagree with is the assumption that owning a high value property means you earn a lot of money. Do we all have to sell up so we can avoid a tax bill punishing us for owning a property for 20 years or more? And where would we move to? Lower value properties in this area driving up the already inflated prices for those? Or do we leave our jobs and move up North?

Edited April 12, 2015 by elsiegee40

[pcstru]

People owning nationally recognised properties of heritage value are already clobbered by death duties and now this too. These properties have been in their families for centuries and their assets are in the property not necessarily in cash. Those stately piles are their homes.

The breaks for people in the position you describe are already eminently reasonable. Otherwise, when you can't afford something any more, you have to move. It is tough but a fact of life.

 

Perhaps we could extend the Tory sympathy to those unlucky enough to have a bedroom they don't use and unlucky enough to be on benefits. That was their home too.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are many high earners that pay pitiful amounts of tax and they need to pay their share. What I disagree with is the assumption that owning a high value property means you earn a lot of money. Do we all have to sell up so we can avoid a tax bill punishing us for owning a property for 20 years or more?

 

It is inheritance tax. It is not that you get taxed because you happen to live in the same place for 20 years, it is your estate that will be taxed before your children inherit it, after you are dead. Those children will then have more money to spend, probably on housing - which will only push prices up, making it more difficult for 'our' children to buy houses, not just "round here" but all over. It is not that people in £1m houses are tax dodgers who need to be punished, nor is it the case that having a £1m house means you necessarily earn lots of money BUT, it is the case that people with the means should pay their share regardless of how they find themselves in that position. If your house hadn't been unfortunate enough to quadruple in value, your children would inherit less, so why exactly does the fact of it being worth more somehow legitimise the lessening of the inheritance tax burden?

[elsiegee40]

I am not arguing against inheritance tax. I am arguing against mansion tax. I accept that the exchequer will take a large portion of our property's value when we go. That's fair. Everyone gets treated equally. You have an asset value when you die and you pay tax on it. Our house is no stately home that needs preserving for the nation.

 

The mansion tax proposal, as far as I can work out, taxes people for living in a property that they own and has increased in value in a way that their income perhaps hasn't. My immediate neighbours are teachers, sales reps and middle managers... not bankers in the city. The targetting of mansion tax is not right.

Edited April 12, 2015 by elsiegee40

[pcstru]

I am not arguing against inheritance tax.

Colour me confused since you were replying to a post on the Tory proposal to increase the limit on inheritance tax.

The mansion tax proposal, as far as I can work out, taxes people for living in a property that they own and has increased in value in a way that their income perhaps hasn't. My immediate neighbours are teachers, sales reps and middle managers... not bankers in the city. The targetting of mansion tax is not right.

As far as I can see the "mansion tax" as proposed by Labour and the Lib Dems is targeted at people who's properties are worth over £2M, estimated to be around 100,000 properties in the UK or 0.4% of all homes. The proposal calls for an additional payment on top of council tax of £5000 per home for those in the unfortunate position of owning a £2M home (rising to around £20K for a home worth £5M). While a few of those that live in such homes "by accident" may not be able to afford that, they do have a very reasonable choice of moving somewhere cheaper. They could certainly do that, find a comfortable property (you generally can for under £2M) and still have enough change for a curly-wurly from the corner shop. In the scheme of things, that seems, to me ... reasonable.

[elsiegee40]

Apologies for confusing the argument. I have a bee in my bonnet about mansion tax. My taxation system would be to stop messing about with taxing lots of things separately and enforce income taxation for all those individuals and businesses earning income in the UK, raising it if necessary for the higher earners. It is probably a simplistic view as I have no idea how you pin down the slippery wotsits on the highest incomes, but it does need to be done in my opinion.

[pcstru]

Apologies for confusing the argument. I have a bee in my bonnet about mansion tax.

I'm not sure I understand that bee in relation to the tax that has been proposed by Labour and the Lib Dems. I could perhaps understand it if the threshold was set too low - but £2 million is not within a few planet widths of being too low. It will catch some people out, essentially through no fault of their own, but that does not make the proposal unfair. Even the worst cases will simply have to move (it is unlikely they will have to 'downsize' or take any real reduction in quality of accommodation and it is unlikely they would have to move more than a mile) and in doing that they will pay off the mortgage they took out 15 years ago. I don't look at that and shudder at the paucity of their fortune or the gruelling, tough life that would follow.

 

It seems we would both agree on a progressive income tax system. I'm in favour of a variety of taxes for a variety of reasons. Some offer opportunity for social engineering by using (say) sales tax to help offset the social costs of (say) unhealthy choices. It also seems sensible to me to have death duties - no one likes paying tax, so getting a huge bill will never be a good thing, but at least if you get one when you are dead, you will (probably) care less while you did actually enjoy all those years of paying slightly less income tax because of revenue raised by death duty. So for me a variety of tax methods make sense, the question with any one of them is, is it fair.

[elsiegee40]

I have every confidence that the next government will not be conservative led and I believe we need change... I just wish my vote would have an impact because this constituency has never had anything except a conservative (or unionist until the 1931 election) MP.

 

It will be interesting to see what mixture of coalition we get, and whether they can hold themselves together for 5 years, because I am also pretty sure that there will be no overall majority.

[StevieM]

It will be interesting to see what mixture of coalition we get, and whether they can hold themselves together for 5 years, because I am also pretty sure that there will be no overall majority.

 

Private Eye's take on the subject:

[zag]

Tax cuts for those struggling with £1,000,000 houses, yay! Thank goodness that after 5 years without a pay rise, at last we see we really are all in it together! Thanks Dave!

 

Isn't it UNDER 1 Million pound houses that are owned by 2 people? (so 500k each)

 

Paid for by a tax on millionaires pensions.

 

Just saying.....

Edited April 13, 2015 by zag

[Ephelyon]

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out... also, the way it actually works is there's a £325,000 allowance at the moment, which will rise to £500,000. The other change is that both partners in a marriage can have one each and combine them, so the total amount comes to £1Mil.

[zag]

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out... also, the way it actually works is there's a £325,000 allowance at the moment, which will rise to £500,000. The other change is that both partners in a marriage can have one each and combine them, so the total amount comes to £1Mil.

 

Yep and that is the maximum possible you can get if your house or investments were worth that much.

 

The quote above made it sound like this was some kind of tax break for millionaires which simply isn't true. Its a tax break for non-millionaires as far as I can see.

 

I still don't understand peoples opposition to tax reductions. Crazy imo!

[elsiegee40]

 

I still don't understand peoples opposition to tax reductions. Crazy imo!

The money has to come from somewhere. If they reduce one tax, another will be increased

[pcstru]

The quote above made it sound like this was some kind of tax break for millionaires which simply isn't true. Its a tax break for non-millionaires as far as I can see.

My statement is accurate as it stands since it does indeed benefit "those struggling with £1,000,000 houses".

I still don't understand peoples opposition to tax reductions. Crazy imo!

My opposition to tax reductions would be based on the fact that we need to spend more on services like Education and the NHS to allow them to deliver services that people deserve and that overall, offer major strategic benefits to the nation. I you want tax cuts, then have tax cuts that benefit those least well off and cut the threshold at which people start paying tax. To see cuts for the better off when some of the worst off have had to bear disproportionate effects of austerity is ... well, a typical Tory election ploy.

[sparkeh]

The money has to come from somewhere. If they reduce one tax, another will be increased

Tax and revenue is not as simple as that. Its is a widely held, economic, belief that reducing tax raises Government revenue (to a point). The Conservatives believe in this but the general public do not, partly due to parties attacking each other on 'unfunded policies'.

 

Some interesting reading: Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MkII]

There should be a curb on profits in the form of direct taxation that makes it impossible to earn a disproportionately large profit.

 

Investors can make huge amounts with capitol whereas manual labour can only break even. That needs to stop and rules put into place which stop benefiting those who already have money.

[6Foot2]

Somewhat off topic I guess, and perhaps a little lighthearted?, but worth a look nonetheless:

 

Nigel Farage challenged to a duel with swords [or words]

 

 

Apparently Mr. Farage has refused the offer of a duel with swords.

[Ephelyon]

I saw this too. It's a shame he's refused; I'd pay good money for a front-row seat for that!

[pcstru]

Tax and revenue is not as simple as that. Its is a widely held, economic, belief that reducing tax raises Government revenue (to a point). The Conservatives believe in this but the general public do not, partly due to parties attacking each other on 'unfunded policies'.

 

Some interesting reading: Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Which may be a reasonable model of what happens but is it more important to raise money efficiently or fairly? It might be the case (say) that higher taxes for high earners could result in a reduced overall income because at some point, enough will simply "move" somewhere else. Should that be put before the fairness of the amount (who pays what) or the needs of the society (how much needs to be paid)? For me the difficult questions are what is fair? How would such a thing as 'fair' not be just a 'value' judgement; subjective, arbitrary?

 

The fact that inheritance tax is even a passing issue in an election is evidence of a very first world problem. We might reasonably be or know someone who would personally benefit from the increase in allowance from £350K. Does that make it unfair? Does it being 'normal' lessen the luxury of it? For me, while I see food banks in our country, the value judgement isn't that difficult; I want rid of the food banks before I want to see people in much more fortunate circumstances handed even more fortune. It's not that I want to punish fortune and privilege, I just don't believe they are anywhere near first in the queue to be given a good break.

[Ephelyon]

The thing is, there are going to be problems which are easy to solve; then there are going to be problems which are hard to solve. How easy or hard a problem is to solve doesn't equate with your "queue".

 

It isn't exactly ideal that the weighting should be in favour of ease of resolution... but it is to be expected on the run-up to an election.