Not sure it is fair to tax middle incomes at 40% plus NI, yet allow people to keep fortunes (literally fortunes) gained simply by sitting on their arse for 30 years in a house they bought for £9 and 6 shillings.
Of course being inheritance tax they personally won’t be getting the fortune, being dead, but I think the principle still stands.
Taxing speculation is a good idea, isn’t it?
The Meissen Bison
Rob:Taxing speculation is a good idea, isn’t it? Even if it were (and it isn’t), buying a house to live in is not speculation.
I bet you didn’t buy a house thirty years ago and shillings went out 43 years ago.
Bloke in Japan
The last house I shared with my parents was bought by them for around 3,000 pounds. That was in 1960. Rob: you are out by about 3 orders of magnitude. Borrox.
Bloke in Costa Rica
Surely the underlying principle is the taxman shouldn’t get two (or multiple) bites at the cherry. Just because an asset or a revenue stream can be taxed does not mean it should be. If tax has been paid on the means by which something has been acquired then that should be an end on it. Inheritance tax raises bugger-all money anyway, so it’s clearly just a case of the greedy Left sticking it to the upper middle classes.
bloke (not) in spain
The problem is, Rob, how you’re assigning the value of the house. You’re assigning the value you think someone other than the owner would pay to own it. . But the owner may simply wish to live in it. Why should their enjoyment of their property be subject to others’ aspirations? If they paid £9/6/- & reckoned they got value for money, what’s changed? Is your suit worth what the ragman might offer you for it?
Jim
Buying a house and watching it rise in price as the money supply inflates is not speculation, its a cast iron investment certainty. Soaring house prices are purely a sign of the amount the currency is being debased.
bloke (not) in spain
@Jim
I sincerely suggest you look at the Spanish residential property market, last few years, & re-asses your use of the expression “cast iron”.
So Much for Subtlety
Rob – “Not sure it is fair to tax middle incomes at 40% plus NI, yet allow people to keep fortunes (literally fortunes) gained simply by sitting on their arse for 30 years in a house they bought for £9 and 6 shillings.”
First of all, we need to starve the beast. The government has too much money and we need to make sure it doesn’t get any more. As they would just waste it.
But second, people don’t just sit on their property. They make their property valuable. Sure, they have some advantages of location, but neighbourhoods are what the locals make them. In Britain this is not such a big problem because most British people are still pretty decent. But look at Detroit. If Brixton became a slum it was because it was full of people who behaved in a slummy way. Once White Middle Class people – the sort of people who pick up their litter, don’t graffiti much, pay attention to their children’s home work and so on – move in, property values rise.
Property prices are actually a reward for virtue and a very strong punishment for vice. A little collectively I admit, but still, good citizenship is not a sensible thing to punish.
So Much for Subtlety
Just in passing, the TV is talking about the problems of the Venezuelan housing market. Chavez froze rents and made it impossible to evict renters.
I am actually impressed by the tone of surprise in the voice of the announcer and she points out that rented housing has fallen from 30% of the market to 1%. And that landlords only rent to foreigners if they can – they pay in dollars and they will go home.
Human beings are truly impressive in terms of the refusal to learn.
PJF
“The problem is [ ] how you’re assigning the value of the house. You’re assigning the value you think someone other than the owner would pay to own it. . But the owner may simply wish to live in it. Why should their enjoyment of their property be subject to others’ aspirations?”
Not sure you meant to, but you just made a definitive argument against a land value tax.
Runcie Balspune
“Not sure it is fair to tax middle incomes at 40% plus NI, yet…”
There is no “yet”, a full stop will suffice here.
Just remember whilst we are pontificating about methods of raising tax, the recipients of said tax will still continue to p*ss it all away on junkets to watch a lingerie clad musician, or duck houses and stuffed snakes.
“The problem is [ ] how you’re assigning the value of the house. You’re assigning the value you think someone other than the owner would pay to own it. . But the owner may simply wish to live in it. Why should their enjoyment of their property be subject to others’ aspirations?”
Not sure you meant to, but you just made a definitive argument against a land value tax.
LVT is based on the value the ‘community’ places on the site, which you can work out from the values of similar sites in the same area, and there are a number of arguments for LVT but, to pick one, the community grants the owner the right to exclusive possession of the site and in return he has to pay up.
Bloke in Wales
the community grants the owner the right to exclusive possession of the site and in return he has to pay up.
I already have the right to exclusive possession of the site of my house. It’s called the freehold.
Not sure it is fair to tax middle incomes at 40% plus NI, yet allow people to keep fortunes (literally fortunes) gained simply by sitting on their arse for 30 years in a house they bought for £9 and 6 shillings.
Of course being inheritance tax they personally won’t be getting the fortune, being dead, but I think the principle still stands.
Taxing speculation is a good idea, isn’t it?
Rob:Taxing speculation is a good idea, isn’t it? Even if it were (and it isn’t), buying a house to live in is not speculation.
I bet you didn’t buy a house thirty years ago and shillings went out 43 years ago.
The last house I shared with my parents was bought by them for around 3,000 pounds. That was in 1960. Rob: you are out by about 3 orders of magnitude. Borrox.
Surely the underlying principle is the taxman shouldn’t get two (or multiple) bites at the cherry. Just because an asset or a revenue stream can be taxed does not mean it should be. If tax has been paid on the means by which something has been acquired then that should be an end on it. Inheritance tax raises bugger-all money anyway, so it’s clearly just a case of the greedy Left sticking it to the upper middle classes.
The problem is, Rob, how you’re assigning the value of the house. You’re assigning the value you think someone other than the owner would pay to own it. . But the owner may simply wish to live in it. Why should their enjoyment of their property be subject to others’ aspirations? If they paid £9/6/- & reckoned they got value for money, what’s changed? Is your suit worth what the ragman might offer you for it?
Buying a house and watching it rise in price as the money supply inflates is not speculation, its a cast iron investment certainty. Soaring house prices are purely a sign of the amount the currency is being debased.
@Jim
I sincerely suggest you look at the Spanish residential property market, last few years, & re-asses your use of the expression “cast iron”.
Rob – “Not sure it is fair to tax middle incomes at 40% plus NI, yet allow people to keep fortunes (literally fortunes) gained simply by sitting on their arse for 30 years in a house they bought for £9 and 6 shillings.”
First of all, we need to starve the beast. The government has too much money and we need to make sure it doesn’t get any more. As they would just waste it.
But second, people don’t just sit on their property. They make their property valuable. Sure, they have some advantages of location, but neighbourhoods are what the locals make them. In Britain this is not such a big problem because most British people are still pretty decent. But look at Detroit. If Brixton became a slum it was because it was full of people who behaved in a slummy way. Once White Middle Class people – the sort of people who pick up their litter, don’t graffiti much, pay attention to their children’s home work and so on – move in, property values rise.
Property prices are actually a reward for virtue and a very strong punishment for vice. A little collectively I admit, but still, good citizenship is not a sensible thing to punish.
Just in passing, the TV is talking about the problems of the Venezuelan housing market. Chavez froze rents and made it impossible to evict renters.
I am actually impressed by the tone of surprise in the voice of the announcer and she points out that rented housing has fallen from 30% of the market to 1%. And that landlords only rent to foreigners if they can – they pay in dollars and they will go home.
Human beings are truly impressive in terms of the refusal to learn.
“The problem is [ ] how you’re assigning the value of the house. You’re assigning the value you think someone other than the owner would pay to own it. . But the owner may simply wish to live in it. Why should their enjoyment of their property be subject to others’ aspirations?”
Not sure you meant to, but you just made a definitive argument against a land value tax.
“Not sure it is fair to tax middle incomes at 40% plus NI, yet…”
There is no “yet”, a full stop will suffice here.
Just remember whilst we are pontificating about methods of raising tax, the recipients of said tax will still continue to p*ss it all away on junkets to watch a lingerie clad musician, or duck houses and stuffed snakes.
LVT is based on the value the ‘community’ places on the site, which you can work out from the values of similar sites in the same area, and there are a number of arguments for LVT but, to pick one, the community grants the owner the right to exclusive possession of the site and in return he has to pay up.
I already have the right to exclusive possession of the site of my house. It’s called the freehold.
That exists because of the ‘community’.
LVT = You pay the state for excluding everyone else from a location, based on the desirability of that location.