Timmy elsewhereNovember 8, 2014 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere14 CommentsAt the ASI. The problem with wealth taxes is that they don’t actually work very well. previousWell, yes, butnextAh, yes, here it is 14 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” Ljh November 8, 2014 at 10:08 am Depressing prices at the top end of the property market will reduce the Treasury’s nice little earner called Stamp Duty but don’t worry everyone will feel better ‘cos the rich are getting punished… bloke (not) in spain November 8, 2014 at 10:30 am Out of interest, does anyone know what proportion of the money used to buy £2m plus houses is borrowed? Gamecock November 8, 2014 at 2:04 pm Bill Clinton pushed through a luxury tax on boats in 1993. Killed the yacht business. People are employed building and maintaining mansions. This tax threatens their jobs. dearieme November 8, 2014 at 2:16 pm Why not just put a huge tax on all watches costing more than fifty quid? You could call it the arse-hole tax. Ditto a huge tax on vanity number plates on cars. Call it the tiny todger tax. This would not only lead to much good-humoured banter, but will do no harm at all to any part of the economy of the slightest importance. Hell, people will probably compete to be able to say that yes, old boy, I am on the Expensive Watches register. Richard Allan November 8, 2014 at 3:49 pm Gamecock: “Bill Clinton pushed through a luxury tax on boats in 1993.” That was Bush Sr in 1991. It was killed in 1993. Gamecock November 8, 2014 at 4:08 pm I did some checking, Richard Allan, and you are correct, it wasn’t Clinton. It was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the one that cost Bush his job, what with his saying, “read-my-lips, no new taxes.” Gamecock November 8, 2014 at 4:11 pm Another way to look at this: rich people are going to spend their money. They can spend it on big houses, or trips to Provence. The British should hope they spend it on big houses. Fred Z November 8, 2014 at 5:26 pm Not taxes, sumptuary laws. It is apparently morally wrong for a common trash businessman to live better than a left wing intellectual or activist, politician or civil master. David November 8, 2014 at 5:57 pm BTW is this true for land valuation taxes as well? Which I quite like by the way compared to transaction taxes or income tax. ac1 November 8, 2014 at 7:40 pm > BTW is this true for land valuation taxes as well? No. It’s a payment for excluding everyone else, not what you do with the land (i.e. taxing the building). abacab November 8, 2014 at 10:12 pm Will this particular wealth tax be able to be offset against debt, like the Continental ones? (the results of which in CH in combination to taxing own rental value as income are to overinflate the housing market and to make the banks lots and lots and lots of money) If so, Richy mc Ritchster will simply do like his continental brethren and remortgage the pad to bring the net value under the threshold 🙂 dearieme November 9, 2014 at 5:47 pm abacab, that’s brilliant. And then one could pass the borrowed money to the nippers, survive seven years, and avoid Inheritance Tax too. Blessed be Ed Moribund. abacab November 9, 2014 at 9:18 pm Well, I can only suppose that one should consider the UK’s current lack of a wealth tax to be evil tax avoidance in Ritchieland. And, should this mansion tax come off, owning a house worth less than 2M will equally be tax avoidance…. john77 November 11, 2014 at 12:16 am @ Fred Z A self-employed worker earning a bit less than half a left-wing academic’s salary (even ignoring the value of the gold-plated pension) gets condemned as an out-of-touch overpaid rich sponger if he dares to query the lefty’s mis-statements. We are not allowed even have to live half as well as them because we are not “public servants”. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.