Mehdi Hassan does make me laugh

Third, poll after poll shows overwhelming public support for a tax on bankers\’ bonuses; a mansion tax on multimillion-pound properties; a windfall levy on the oil and utility companies; a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions; and a one-off wealth tax of 20% on the richest 10% of households (which would raise a whopping £800bn and, according to YouGov, is backed by three out of four voters).

Increasing taxes on the rich to help reduce the deficit isn\’t \”class warfare\”,

No, no Mehdi, that\’s not class warfare at all.

We know that the average wealth of the top 10% of households is £850,000. That\’s property, private pension plans, the lot. What you\’re in fact asking is that just about anyone with a decent house in the SE and a pension needs to stump up £170,000 in cash.

No, not class warfare at all that, nothing like it.

15 comments on “Mehdi Hassan does make me laugh

  1. He also makes the point that the deficit was supposedly caused by a fall in tax revenues… why does he want to make the state more reliant in tax revenues then? The man is a grade A clown

  2. These statists really wont be satisfied until they spend every penny that any of us earn… in a time of financial constraint, there can be no consideration of shrinking the state, or thought that maybe too much government is the root of most of our problems..

  3. And if your house and pension is worth more than five times my cash and investments, you would have to sell your house to pay the one-off tax.
    Well, it would get the housing market moving as never before as that must be the case for more than three-quarters of the victims…

  4. If they do carry out their wishes watch out for the unforseen consequences. For example, death duties were brought in to get more tax but lead to the break up of loads of mansions and estates thereby causing a loss of future tax from those estates and creating the need for English Heritage to list and protect all future ancient estates from any future “inappropriate” changes.

  5. Johnnydub, they always go further than that, once they have all the money your earn, they starting going after all your savings as well. Murphy is always very keen to get his hands on everyones pensions for the state to spend the way he wishes.

  6. “Poll after poll shows that if you ask people whether you should take money off other people to spend on them they will say yes” Who knew?

  7. I think we should challenge people talking about how out of touch the top x% are, and how much they can afford, to say what they think the average for that group is (e.g., what is the average wealth of the top 10%). I bet Hasan would be out by a factor of at least five, if not even ten.

  8. We already tax bankers bonuses, don’t we? At 50%?

    What happens in five years when c*nts like him have broken the country again and there aren’t any more ‘rich’ people to steal from?

  9. Land Value Tax will do the job much better.

    I don’t actually see a big problem with a windfall tax of 20% on the value of housing, which the Baby Boomers would have to finance by taking out a loan, because it is the very same Baby Boomers who expect the young oppressed hard working folk to have to take out a loan of 90% of the duly inflated value of housing if they want to own one.

    So even with the benefit of hindsight, I’d rather have bought a house for f- all twenty or thirty years ago and be landed with a mortgage of 20% of the value than to be young and be landed with a mortgage of 95% of the value.

    And the effective rate on bankers’ bonuses is actually 57.8% if you include NIC.

  10. http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r71.pdf

    Page 12

    90th percentile
    2005 figures
    Financial wealth Housing wealth Wealth
    90th pct 58,849 294,889 369,866

    So if you have over £400k in assets you’re going to have to cash in and give 20% to Mehdi!

    What a great way to tackle those rich pensioners sucking the lifeblood out of the country.

  11. @Mark Wadsworth: I don’t actually see a big problem with a windfall tax of 20% on the value of housing,

    Well I f*cking well do! I worked my tits off for 40-odd years in order to buy the place in which I live. Oddly enough, in the “good old days” we also had mortgages – often at rates of over 10%. Buying a house then was every bit as much a financial imposition as you seem to think that it is today – they didn’t just hand the bloody things out in exchange for a few “Cornflakes” box tops!

    which the Baby Boomers would have to finance by taking out a loan

    Tricky, when you’re (a) considered too old and (b) on a pension.

    You are showing your callow youth young man.

  12. @ Mark Wadsworth
    20% on the value of my house PLUS the value of my pension PLUS the value of all my other savings, which cannot be via a mortgage because building societies and banks do not provide mortgages to pensioners.
    If you think my house cost f-all and that a 65-year-old Baby Boomer can get a mortgage then you are doubly an idiot.
    Not all Baby Boomers are 65 – some are 67, some only 63 but NONE of them are deemed acceptable for a conventional mortgage and the handful of firms offering “lifetime mortgages” could not meet more than a couple of percent of the demand that would be created.
    In the UK one cannot borrow against the value of future pension payments so the average Baby Boomer would have to use all his/her cash plus liquidate all his/her financial assets and take out an unsecured loan for the balance of the tax payment. The tax on the value of the pension would be more than three years’ gross income, more than four years’ net income. To pay interest at the rates charged on unsecured loans on tax charged on house plus pension would leave the average guy with not enough to live on *unless* he sold his house at the same time as 2 million or so other guys were trying to sell theirs.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.