To ask what you think of a mansion tax?

[Liketochat1]

Nick Clegg has raised the issue of taxing people on their assets again. Is this fair? Should you have to pay more tax if you have a valuable house, art or other property?

It's little things that need fixing, not slapping on completely new taxes. Example.... income tax is at 45%, 40% or 25% depending on the size of income. CGT is between 18% and 28% (used to be a flat 18%). Being paid in assets like shares is therefore more attractive than being paid in cash. Lots of similar examples in our over-complex tax system with all its exemptions and thresholds. Radically simplify it and the fancy tax accountants have far less scope.

Hmm, I disagree, lots of those 'little things' are specifically designed to oil the wheels of the economy.

We claim 125% tax relief against all our spending on R&D for example. It looks like a loophole at first glance, but our company innovates, and generates both employment and wealth. If that 'loophole' didn't exist, it would be a disincentive for us to continue to develop which would be a shame not just for us, but for the economy as a whole. (I'm not suggesting that our company individually makes that much difference, but I'm sure you get my point)

If, as a nation, we manage to increase Aggregate Demand/Supply, then GDP will increase and we will all benefit.

The politics of envy just feels like a race to the bottom; we should be looking at the big picture rather than squabbling over whether one individual has more than another.

Mansion Tax is just picking from the most obvious pot. How about people who don't necessarily live in the grandest house that they can afford but have significant pensions or a small yet valuable art collection or precious metals?

The politics of envy disgusts me and I am not wealthy. Nick Clegg is a cheap and desperate politician with no vision, but then so few of them have these days. So glad I am emigrating in a couple of months.

What would a simplified tax system look like IYO cogito? (Im genuinely interested, not having a go)

It's pure politics. A way of trying to regain some much needed popularity for the lib dems and distinguishes them from the Tories. Prepare yourself for more announcements like this as the election gets closer.

To say that the rich should play their part neatly avoids the fact that the rich already pay the vast majority of taxes in this country.

alouise - are you suggesting that the gov ought to be able to raid pension pots? I've spent the last 20 years or so paying into mine. why should someone be able to raid it? just so i can subsidise my lazy BIL even more - someone who does the minimum work, no study, no responsibility.

i've had years of stress, hard work and grief paying into that. years that i could have been chilling out looking after my children and lazy around on the beach like other mums round here

I'm not saying that the government should raid pensions any more than they should raid property. I'm saying that property is an arbitrary indicator of wealth and that Clegg is picking a lazy and obvious option.

An interesting indicator of how taxpayers contribute

I think I should have said 'wealth' tax rather than mansion tax because that's what this is. A tax on assets. I don't agree with it Wannabe or anything you've said.
You say 'the rich should play their part'. As though they don't. Do you know the top one per cent of earners pays nearly a third of all the income tax taken? Do you know that one in every 3 pounds collected is spent on welfare? And the rich aren't playing a part?
All this whilst those seeking job seekers allowance don't even have to prepare a cv in their hours off work to help them get a job. Isn't that the least they could be expected to do? I don't know. Its all messed up.

What is ?

I think that as the rich have paid stamp duty on their mansions (presumably?) then it would seem unfair to tax the same thing again?

I have no issue with the rich, I think people are envious of them though. Rich people spend their cash on loads of things that benefit society - nannies, cleaners, other staff, luxury goods large and small and loads of other stuff I have no idea about. I can't see the problem.

I do know that society needs money, but I see ths sort of tax scheme as rather like 2 friends going out for dinner and rather than splitting the bill, friend 1 says to friend 2, oh, you are richer than me so I will pay £10 and you can pay £30. Ie totally unfair.

this is a sticking-plaster tax -very few houses (given the 2million threshold suggested) in my area would be affected, therefore little extra revenue generated. And who decides which houses fall in that bracket?

i prefer local income tax (with redistributive national rebalancing)

local income tax is one of the battiest of lib dem ideas and one reason why i would never vote for them. why should an old person living in a mansion pay very little in terms of tax because they are on a pension (but have few outgoings and massive savings), whilst a young 2 earning couple with a massive mortgage and high costs such as childcare pay loads of tax?

it takes no account of outgoings and therefore ability to pay

and would the rebalancing give money to areas where the cost of living is very high, or areas where its low? If its the latter, then people in these areas probably have a higher standard of living already - or at least my relatives in wales do.

This is being touted as an emergency tax by Clegg. Just as income tax was introduced to pay for a long distant memory of a war. Nothing ever stays short term when it comes to the government squeezing people until "their pips squeak".

Weath taxes have failed miserably elsewhere, I see no good reason why they would work here.

I think inheritance tax should be raised, and the HMRC should be given more money by the government so they can actually employ enough qualified staff to investigate these loopholes and get them closed. And take on the big corporations like Vodaphone who can get away with paying only a tiny portion of what they actually owe the government.

I think it is impractical. Who will be responsible for reviewing which houses fall within the tax band and keeping records updated in case of big gains ( or drops) in the value of houses? If it can't be paid because the owner is on a pension, will it be taken as a charge after death, if so there is no real gain to the economy and probably a reduction in inheritance tax.

I think it would be much more sensible to really look into a land value tax which would replace income tax and is much harder to dodge. It might even be cheaper.

The more one earns, the more tax one pays. If you want to keep the best brains in Britain and encourage entrepreneurship to restart and sustain growth Britain needs to keep the most talented on these shores. Most people with "mansions" or valuable assets have already paid enormous amounts of tax. Increase the taxes and they may leave the UK making growth and recovery more difficult for all.

What concerns me is how a mansion will be defined. If it is based on market value people living in fairly ordinary homes in certains parts of the country could find themselves included while people living in far grander properties in less expensive areas will not.

And if they do target homes only the very rich can afford would the tax stay in line with inflation? Inheritance tax was intended to target the super rich, hence landed and titled people selling their Gainsboroughs, or acres, or gifting houses to the nation in the mid 20th century. Yet now owning a suburban semi in the south east will see your estate hit with inheritance tax.

A mansion tax seems to be a blunt weapon. If they had the gumption to properly reform the entire tax system they could use a stiletto knife.

I refuse to pay tax on my mansion!! That's why i let everyone believe that i live in a small house. But actually it belongs to one of my servants. I can't remember which servant because i do have a few hundred.

Anyway. Ban mansion tax. Tax the poor! Even more!!

"What would a simplified tax system look like"

Caveat, not an accountant... but I think there are too many sliding scales, thresholds, exemptions, allowances and special cases. The minute there's a threshold to be under or over it either becomes an incentive to massage the numbers or a dampener on ambition. If there's an exemption to be had, definitions get twisted. So my vision is flat rates of tax across as many categories as possible and far fewer points to argue. Short-term it would mean some paid less and some more (which is why it will never happen) but long-term I think it would put tax experts out of business and we'd all gain.

And take on the big corporations like Vodaphone who can get away with paying only a tiny portion of what they actually owe the government.

Vodafone don't 'actually owe' the government anything.

They paid the tax they were liable for. They rightly exploited a loophole which the previous left-wing fuckwits government hadn't noticed while they were up to their ears with their snouts in the trough.

And the let wing loons squandered the billions that vodafone paid for 3g licenses. It is just as well they sensibly built up a cash reserve to allow them to keep high paid jobs in the UK which the government taxes.

Do you know anyone on Jobseekers allowance liketochat1 ?

Don't support this, although for me it's because a house isn't necessarily an asset, but a home. I know, I just threw up a little at the cliche there, but once you buy a house and pay the stamp duty that should be it, end of. Until, of course, you die and your children have to pay inheritance tax on it

I would support a tax on second homes though- buy to lets and holiday houses. Might do something to deflate the prices.