Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Proposed Wealth Tax

769 replies

BootsieBarnes · 30/01/2021 16:11

It's been discussed in the press that the Chancellor is considering a one-off wealth tax of 5% on assets over £500k. Allegedly this is being considered as part of the March budget to make a dent in the huge Covid debt the UK is facing.

So in real terms that would be a £25k tax bill for someone who has assets valued at £500k, such as property.

What do you think about this? would your family be able to swallow a tax bill that size?

I'm not doing any research, I just read that and thought about the impact it would have on families living in houses in that price bracket.

I've put on voting as well for interest. I'm not actually sure where I stand on this as I can see both sides, so this is just an arbitrary allocation just for voting.

YABU - people with assets that big should pay

YANBU - that would be unfair

OP posts:
XjustagirlX · 03/02/2021 18:23

The definition of wealth is not how much liquid cash you have. It is the value of your assets less liabilities.

The people who this tax would affect are wealthy. There will always be exceptions such as single parents or widows etc but for the majority of people this would affect, they would and should be able to pay. Either upfront, over a few years or on a sale.

o8O8O8o · 03/02/2021 18:23

I suppose much of the problem lies with the retrospective aspect...ie people bought those houses in the expectation that they would not be subject to a wealth tax

MarshaBradyo · 03/02/2021 18:23

@o8O8O8o

they’re just unwilling to sell their homes. Is that so difficult to understand? of course I get that selling a home isnt the same as selling jewelry, still we have people in possession of considerable assets who are choosing to use them 'inefficiently'
They have one asset which they live in.

How is it inefficient? It can easily not be a big house in SE at a high price

YouJustDoYou · 03/02/2021 18:25

of course I get that selling a home isnt the same as selling jewelry, still we have people in possession of considerable assets who are choosing to use them 'inefficiently

😂😂😂

VinylDetective · 03/02/2021 18:25

And who decides what’s “inefficient”?

o8O8O8o · 03/02/2021 18:25

No, because you can't live in a drawer full of diamonds, whereas if your only asset is the very home you live in, but you have no cash...understand now?
sell your home for a cheaper home, you now have cash and a home!
As said
'The definition of wealth is not how much liquid cash you have. It is the value of your assets less liabilities'

o8O8O8o · 03/02/2021 18:26

@VinylDetective

And who decides what’s “inefficient”?
I dont know, what do you recon VD?
Blackberrycream · 03/02/2021 18:26

@o80808o
I’m not sure at which end of the political spectrum you identify ( probably left I suspect). What is apparent though is the commonality that often appears between extreme left and right ideology.
Have you really thought about what you are saying?

YouJustDoYou · 03/02/2021 18:27

The people who this tax would affect are wealthy. There will always be exceptions such as single parents or widows etc but for the majority of people this would affect, they would and should be able to pay. Either upfront, over a few years or on a sale

Except that historically a wealth tax has never, ever worked. Look at France. It costs a Governement a frightening amount to actually even try to activate and claim wealth tax from its citizens than they actually gain in return, which is why it's always failed.

o8O8O8o · 03/02/2021 18:29

Have you really thought about what you are saying?
which bits? I'm just musing, devils avocado etc:)

VinylDetective · 03/02/2021 18:29

@o8O8O8o

No, because you can't live in a drawer full of diamonds, whereas if your only asset is the very home you live in, but you have no cash...understand now? sell your home for a cheaper home, you now have cash and a home! As said 'The definition of wealth is not how much liquid cash you have. It is the value of your assets less liabilities'
Oh do give over. It’s easy to see who owns their home and who doesn’t on this thread!
YouJustDoYou · 03/02/2021 18:30

sell your home for a cheaper home, you now have cash and a home!
As said 'The definition of wealth is not how much liquid cash you have. It is the value of your assets less liabilities

I'm SO sure you'd be singing the same pious, ignorant time when the Government/other pious ignoramus come knocking on YOUR door demanding you sell up for "something smaller" to "pay your way for the Government's tax deficit". This would make such a Orwellean novel.

MarshaBradyo · 03/02/2021 18:30

Oh do give over. It’s easy to see who owns their home and who doesn’t on this thread!

Or who lives in area with lower priced assets. No threat of selling family home to pay bill.

XjustagirlX · 03/02/2021 18:31

@YouJustDoYou just because it hasn’t worked previously doesn’t mean we shouldnt try again. We haven’t cured cancer, it doesn’t mean we should stop trying.

PigletJohn · 03/02/2021 18:31

"If you want to operate a business here, if you buy or sell here, you pay tax here."

A very reasonable idea.

I await accusations of mistaken Marxism.

Sorryusernamealreadyexists · 03/02/2021 18:32

Not for main residence but any other assets absolutely!

XjustagirlX · 03/02/2021 18:34

No one is demanding anyone sell their family home!

o8O8O8o · 03/02/2021 18:34

Oh do give over. It’s easy to see who owns their home and who doesn’t on this thread!
go on then, guess my status on that front....

Blackberrycream · 03/02/2021 18:34

@o8O8O8o

Have you really thought about what you are saying? which bits? I'm just musing, devils avocado etc:)
I’m just imagining someone marching into my home deciding on my efficiency/ right to stay. It’s not a comfortable thought. Homes are more than a house.
MarshaBradyo · 03/02/2021 18:35

@XjustagirlX

No one is demanding anyone sell their family home!
When do you pay - Only when you sell?
XjustagirlX · 03/02/2021 18:38

@MarshaBradyo it’s all only discussion at this point. But the original idea was to pay over 5 years. But there is no way anyone would be forced to sell their family home to pay this. People are getting obsessed with selling their home which is just clouding the original debate.

MarshaBradyo · 03/02/2021 18:39

[quote XjustagirlX]@MarshaBradyo it’s all only discussion at this point. But the original idea was to pay over 5 years. But there is no way anyone would be forced to sell their family home to pay this. People are getting obsessed with selling their home which is just clouding the original debate.[/quote]
I’m not obsessed with selling ; I just don’t know the details.

MarshaBradyo · 03/02/2021 18:41

If it’s five years it would still be tough for many, on this street for a start. But easier

XjustagirlX · 03/02/2021 18:48

@MarshaBradyo apologises I didn’t mean you personally. I just think people generally are jumping to the conclusion that they would have to sell their home which would never happen. And the actual debate is if the wealth tax is a good idea, not how will people pay for it. The payment of it is a separate issue and could I imagine he find in various ways, on death, on sake, upfront, over 5 years, with a payment plan from HMRC.

recluse · 03/02/2021 18:51

I'm SO sure you'd be singing the same pious, ignorant time when the Government/other pious ignoramus come knocking on YOUR door demanding you sell up for "something smaller" to "pay your way for the Government's tax deficit".

It’s this which is annoying me - the government have so mismanaged this crisis, and throughout wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on contracts for their incompetent mates - Dido Harding being an example.

Yet to recoup this money they won’t go after the Dido Hardings / increase corporation tax / go after money hidden offshore / recoup the tax saved by stopping people paying themselves in dividends / or by people setting up trusts for their children. They won’t go after the very rich, but after the rest of us - sitting ducks.

Which is different to saying that the property market is inflated and housing very unequal. These things needs to be fixed, but to recoup money due to their catastrophic handling of this crisis, go after the Philip Greens first.

Not just to recoup it, but so that such vast quantities of wealth aren’t held by such a small number of people. Not to mention companies like Amazon finding endless tax loopholes.