Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So its true then the rich get richer under a Tory government,...glad we cleared that up.
Thank goodness none of the rich got richer under Labour. Those fat cats must be drinking milk at the poorhouse as we speak.
Oh come on, the average house price in London is "only" £600k, that is from reports released yesterday. Way down on what the proposed mansion tax is looking to hit. I don't agree with all the points of it but it's hardly likely to affect that many of us and if it does they can more than likely afford it.
'Cash-rich but asset-poor' i.e. someone on a low income who purchased the house at a more modest price but now owns a house worth millions because of property speculators. It's more common that you're led to believe and Ed Miliband has refused to comment on whether people in such a situation would be protected by his proposed tax.
Also nearly every expert who has offered an opinion of this has said this tax will be expensive to administer, will take years to see any benefit (as all houses will need to be independently assessed and then property owners will appeal), and will raise nowhere near the kind of money that is being stated. There are far better ways of taxing rich people but Ed Miliband is ideologically anchored to this awful policy.
*sigh* That's asset-rich but cash-poor. And to be honest, if you are in that situation, you have plenty of options to downsize or move to a nearby cheaper area. The advantage of a mansion tax is that you can't physically move the damn things off-shore to avoid the tax, unlike various other classes of assets. As for the valuations, a quick trawl through the land registry database would be a reasonable starting point, and to be honest we are WELL overdue a council tax banding revaluation anyway, so they may as well kill two birds with one stone.
Oh come on, the average house price in London is "only" £600k, that is from reports released yesterday. Way down on what the proposed mansion tax is looking to hit. I don't agree with all the points of it but it's hardly likely to affect that many of us and if it does they can more than likely afford it.
'Cash-rich but asset-poor' i.e. someone on a low income who purchased the house at a more modest price but now owns a house worth millions because of property speculators. It's more common that you're led to believe and Ed Miliband has refused to comment on whether people in such a situation would be protected by his proposed tax.
Also nearly every expert who has offered an opinion of this has said this tax will be expensive to administer, will take years to see any benefit (as all houses will need to be independently assessed and then property owners will appeal), and will raise nowhere near the kind of money that is being stated. There are far better ways of taxing rich people but Ed Miliband is ideologically anchored to this awful policy.
*sigh* That's asset-rich but cash-poor. And to be honest, if you are in that situation, you have plenty of options to downsize or move to a nearby cheaper area. The advantage of a mansion tax is that you can't physically move the damn things off-shore to avoid the tax, unlike various other classes of assets. As for the valuations, a quick trawl through the land registry database would be a reasonable starting point, and to be honest we are WELL overdue a council tax banding revaluation anyway, so they may as well kill two birds with one stone.
So someone who has lived in their family home for decades should be forced to move so an overseas baron can buy their house as a second home? That'll be a great benefit to the local economy. But yeah, you're right, how dare non-rich people live in areas that rich people want to live in? They should all be forced to move to ghettos. Or Crewe, you know, anywhere so long as the rich people don't have to live with people poorer than they are.
It was generally agreed that the brief increase in the highest rate of tax to 50% produced virtually no additional tax revenue (due to 'Laffer Curve' effects) so to consider bringing it back as a Labour policy is brazenly political and punitive.
At 45% (+2% national insurance), the balance between what the individual keeps and the state collects seems just about fair, particularly as in this country no reasonable person could claim that citizens receive Scandinavian-quality public services or infrastructure.
Oh come on, the average house price in London is "only" £600k, that is from reports released yesterday. Way down on what the proposed mansion tax is looking to hit. I don't agree with all the points of it but it's hardly likely to affect that many of us and if it does they can more than likely afford it.
'Cash-rich but asset-poor' i.e. someone on a low income who purchased the house at a more modest price but now owns a house worth millions because of property speculators. It's more common that you're led to believe and Ed Miliband has refused to comment on whether people in such a situation would be protected by his proposed tax.
Also nearly every expert who has offered an opinion of this has said this tax will be expensive to administer, will take years to see any benefit (as all houses will need to be independently assessed and then property owners will appeal), and will raise nowhere near the kind of money that is being stated. There are far better ways of taxing rich people but Ed Miliband is ideologically anchored to this awful policy.
*sigh* That's asset-rich but cash-poor. And to be honest, if you are in that situation, you have plenty of options to downsize or move to a nearby cheaper area. The advantage of a mansion tax is that you can't physically move the damn things off-shore to avoid the tax, unlike various other classes of assets. As for the valuations, a quick trawl through the land registry database would be a reasonable starting point, and to be honest we are WELL overdue a council tax banding revaluation anyway, so they may as well kill two birds with one stone.
So someone who has lived in their family home for decades should be forced to move so an overseas baron can buy their house as a second home? That'll be a great benefit to the local economy. But yeah, you're right, how dare non-rich people live in areas that rich people want to live in? They should all be forced to move to ghettos. Or Crewe, you know, anywhere so long as the rich people don't have to live with people poorer than they are.
Entertainingly, those words you're attempting to put in my mouth are precisely the type of arguments that have been used about social housing in those rich areas, and the bedroom tax. The difference is that those people are asset poor AND cash poor, which means their options for alternative accommodation are much more limited. And if you've been living in your family home for decades, you should probably be reviewing whether it still meets your needs, or whether it would actually make more sense to move somewhere a little smaller and more manageable.
Oh come on, the average house price in London is "only" £600k, that is from reports released yesterday. Way down on what the proposed mansion tax is looking to hit. I don't agree with all the points of it but it's hardly likely to affect that many of us and if it does they can more than likely afford it.
'Cash-rich but asset-poor' i.e. someone on a low income who purchased the house at a more modest price but now owns a house worth millions because of property speculators. It's more common that you're led to believe and Ed Miliband has refused to comment on whether people in such a situation would be protected by his proposed tax.
Also nearly every expert who has offered an opinion of this has said this tax will be expensive to administer, will take years to see any benefit (as all houses will need to be independently assessed and then property owners will appeal), and will raise nowhere near the kind of money that is being stated. There are far better ways of taxing rich people but Ed Miliband is ideologically anchored to this awful policy.
*sigh* That's asset-rich but cash-poor. And to be honest, if you are in that situation, you have plenty of options to downsize or move to a nearby cheaper area. The advantage of a mansion tax is that you can't physically move the damn things off-shore to avoid the tax, unlike various other classes of assets. As for the valuations, a quick trawl through the land registry database would be a reasonable starting point, and to be honest we are WELL overdue a council tax banding revaluation anyway, so they may as well kill two birds with one stone.
So someone who has lived in their family home for decades should be forced to move so an overseas baron can buy their house as a second home? That'll be a great benefit to the local economy. But yeah, you're right, how dare non-rich people live in areas that rich people want to live in? They should all be forced to move to ghettos. Or Crewe, you know, anywhere so long as the rich people don't have to live with people poorer than they are.
Entertainingly, those words you're attempting to put in my mouth are precisely the type of arguments that have been used about social housing in those rich areas, and the bedroom tax. The difference is that those people are asset poor AND cash poor, which means their options for alternative accommodation are much more limited. And if you've been living in your family home for decades, you should probably be reviewing whether it still meets your needs, or whether it would actually make more sense to move somewhere a little smaller and more manageable.
I still don't like a policy that will effectively end up with poorer families forced out of homes they rightfully own and allowing billionaires to annex parts of London that they'll barely visit. Especially since it is a policy that is being pursued for purely ideological reasons and against expert advice.
Poorer? POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
Poorer? POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
Yes, some of the arguments on here are laughable. I'm going to start a charity next week for people with 2 million pounds is assets! This seems to worry some people more than the terrible rise in people relying on foodbanks!!!!
Poorer? POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
Yes, some of the arguments on here are laughable. I'm going to start a charity next week for people with 2 million pounds is assets! This seems to worry some people more than the terrible rise in people relying on foodbanks!!!!
It's certainly worrying, I'm wondering if any of them have even seen a food bank, I have because I volunteer with the church sometimes. And as I said before there's very few places that can make you cry.
Oh come on, the average house price in London is "only" £600k, that is from reports released yesterday. Way down on what the proposed mansion tax is looking to hit. I don't agree with all the points of it but it's hardly likely to affect that many of us and if it does they can more than likely afford it.
'Cash-rich but asset-poor' i.e. someone on a low income who purchased the house at a more modest price but now owns a house worth millions because of property speculators. It's more common that you're led to believe and Ed Miliband has refused to comment on whether people in such a situation would be protected by his proposed tax.
Also nearly every expert who has offered an opinion of this has said this tax will be expensive to administer, will take years to see any benefit (as all houses will need to be independently assessed and then property owners will appeal), and will raise nowhere near the kind of money that is being stated. There are far better ways of taxing rich people but Ed Miliband is ideologically anchored to this awful policy.
*sigh* That's asset-rich but cash-poor. And to be honest, if you are in that situation, you have plenty of options to downsize or move to a nearby cheaper area. The advantage of a mansion tax is that you can't physically move the damn things off-shore to avoid the tax, unlike various other classes of assets. As for the valuations, a quick trawl through the land registry database would be a reasonable starting point, and to be honest we are WELL overdue a council tax banding revaluation anyway, so they may as well kill two birds with one stone.
So someone who has lived in their family home for decades should be forced to move so an overseas baron can buy their house as a second home? That'll be a great benefit to the local economy. But yeah, you're right, how dare non-rich people live in areas that rich people want to live in? They should all be forced to move to ghettos. Or Crewe, you know, anywhere so long as the rich people don't have to live with people poorer than they are.
Entertainingly, those words you're attempting to put in my mouth are precisely the type of arguments that have been used about social housing in those rich areas, and the bedroom tax. The difference is that those people are asset poor AND cash poor, which means their options for alternative accommodation are much more limited. And if you've been living in your family home for decades, you should probably be reviewing whether it still meets your needs, or whether it would actually make more sense to move somewhere a little smaller and more manageable.
I still don't like a policy that will effectively end up with poorer families forced out of homes they rightfully ownwalking away with millions of pounds of tax-free cash and allowing billionaires to annex parts ofbuy properties in London that they'llthey may barely visit and, when they do, adding substantially to the local economy. Especially since it is a policy that is being pursued for purely ideological reasons and against expert my advice.
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm sorry, but that's just unacceptable. You cannot, in all honesty, be suggesting that the "body language" of a woman makes them "more likely to be attacked". Maybe you posted this by mistake. If so, and if you delete it, I will certainly delete this post. But if you genuinely and deliberately posted that, it's an outrageous suggestion. It's saying "if a woman gets attacked, she might have been culpable, depending on what her body language was". And, by extension, "her attacker's guilt is lessened by the way she was acting before it happened".
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.
I've not read this thread for a couple of days. Anyway, Chizz it took me all of 10 seconds to prove that what I said is correct.
Poorer? POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
I meant cash-poor. For some people, money isn't the most important thing in the world even if it clearly is to you. Ok, yeah, if they're forced to sell due to the mansion tax, then they will be 2 million richer but they will have to move. Also some of these people will be in their 60s and 70s or older - some might not even live long enough to spend that money in a way that's meaningful for them. Just because you can't empathise with these people because you and Muttley seem to lack basic social skills or can't seem to understand anyone living in a situation that doesn't exactly mirror yours but this potential tax is causing people stuck in this situation a lot of unnecessary worry and stress. They would rather lead more humble lives and keep the home they love than have millions but lose the home they love. Especially for older people uprooting themselves can be a stressful time.
Poorer? POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
I meant cash-poor. For some people, money isn't the most important thing in the world even if it clearly is to you. Ok, yeah, if they're forced to sell due to the mansion tax, then they will be 2 million richer but they will have to move. Also some of these people will be in their 60s and 70s or older - some might not even live long enough to spend that money in a way that's meaningful for them. Just because you can't empathise with these people because you and Muttley seem to lack basic social skills or can't seem to understand anyone living in a situation that doesn't exactly mirror yours but this potential tax is causing people stuck in this situation a lot of unnecessary worry and stress. They would rather lead more humble lives and keep the home they love than have millions but lose the home they love. Especially for older people uprooting themselves can be a stressful time.
Equity release will be their salvation and reduce their IHT liability at the same time.
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm sorry, but that's just unacceptable. You cannot, in all honesty, be suggesting that the "body language" of a woman makes them "more likely to be attacked". Maybe you posted this by mistake. If so, and if you delete it, I will certainly delete this post. But if you genuinely and deliberately posted that, it's an outrageous suggestion. It's saying "if a woman gets attacked, she might have been culpable, depending on what her body language was". And, by extension, "her attacker's guilt is lessened by the way she was acting before it happened".
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.
I skipped the first 50 or so pages of this thread so I missed this, but that's so far from what he said you should apologise for twisting his words to make it look that way.
"Labour also say there would be protection for cash-poor but equity-rich owners - likely to be the option of paying the charge from their estate when they die."
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm sorry, but that's just unacceptable. You cannot, in all honesty, be suggesting that the "body language" of a woman makes them "more likely to be attacked". Maybe you posted this by mistake. If so, and if you delete it, I will certainly delete this post. But if you genuinely and deliberately posted that, it's an outrageous suggestion. It's saying "if a woman gets attacked, she might have been culpable, depending on what her body language was". And, by extension, "her attacker's guilt is lessened by the way she was acting before it happened".
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.
I've not read this thread for a couple of days. Anyway, Chizz it took me all of 10 seconds to prove that what I said is correct.
I hadn't seen that you had posted again. I find any suggestion that a woman might fall prey to an attacker due to her own actions utterly abhorrent. Your original post expounded a view that a woman could be considered culpable when she's attacked. It's an awful suggestion and conjures up the weakest defence of those accused of such unspeakable crimes.
Had you said "man" or "person" instead of "woman", your original intention (which I now understand is different from the inference easily applicable to it) would have been clearer. But, as you chose to use the word "woman", it's easy to infer that you meant "women are sometimes to blame when they're attacked". Which, I am sure you'll agree, is not right.
Poorer? POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
I meant cash-poor. For some people, money isn't the most important thing in the world even if it clearly is to you. Ok, yeah, if they're forced to sell due to the mansion tax, then they will be 2 million richer but they will have to move. Also some of these people will be in their 60s and 70s or older - some might not even live long enough to spend that money in a way that's meaningful for them. Just because you can't empathise with these people because you and Muttley seem to lack basic social skills or can't seem to understand anyone living in a situation that doesn't exactly mirror yours but this potential tax is causing people stuck in this situation a lot of unnecessary worry and stress. They would rather lead more humble lives and keep the home they love than have millions but lose the home they love. Especially for older people uprooting themselves can be a stressful time.
For older people, the tax could be settled from their estate after they die. Therefore no need for them to sell up.
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm sorry, but that's just unacceptable. You cannot, in all honesty, be suggesting that the "body language" of a woman makes them "more likely to be attacked". Maybe you posted this by mistake. If so, and if you delete it, I will certainly delete this post. But if you genuinely and deliberately posted that, it's an outrageous suggestion. It's saying "if a woman gets attacked, she might have been culpable, depending on what her body language was". And, by extension, "her attacker's guilt is lessened by the way she was acting before it happened".
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.
I've not read this thread for a couple of days. Anyway, Chizz it took me all of 10 seconds to prove that what I said is correct.
I hadn't seen that you had posted again. I find any suggestion that a woman might fall prey to an attacker due to her own actions utterly abhorrent. Your original post expounded a view that a woman could be considered culpable when she's attacked. It's an awful suggestion and conjures up the weakest defence of those accused of such unspeakable crimes.
Had you said "man" or "person" instead of "woman", your original intention (which I now understand is different from the inference easily applicable to it) would have been clearer. But, as you chose to use the word "woman", it's easy to infer that you meant "women are sometimes to blame when they're attacked". Which, I am sure you'll agree, is not right.
You're reading it the wrong way. The only person to blame for sexual assault is the perpetrator, not the victim.
However, a woman who is alone at night walking through a dark park or unlit street is more likely to be attacked than one with friends in a lit area. Likewise a child playing alone in a field is more likely to be kidnapped than one at a public park being supervised by its parents. It doesn't put any blame on the victim.
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm sorry, but that's just unacceptable. You cannot, in all honesty, be suggesting that the "body language" of a woman makes them "more likely to be attacked". Maybe you posted this by mistake. If so, and if you delete it, I will certainly delete this post. But if you genuinely and deliberately posted that, it's an outrageous suggestion. It's saying "if a woman gets attacked, she might have been culpable, depending on what her body language was". And, by extension, "her attacker's guilt is lessened by the way she was acting before it happened".
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.
I've not read this thread for a couple of days. Anyway, Chizz it took me all of 10 seconds to prove that what I said is correct.
I hadn't seen that you had posted again. I find any suggestion that a woman might fall prey to an attacker due to her own actions utterly abhorrent. Your original post expounded a view that a woman could be considered culpable when she's attacked. It's an awful suggestion and conjures up the weakest defence of those accused of such unspeakable crimes.
Had you said "man" or "person" instead of "woman", your original intention (which I now understand is different from the inference easily applicable to it) would have been clearer. But, as you chose to use the word "woman", it's easy to infer that you meant "women are sometimes to blame when they're attacked". Which, I am sure you'll agree, is not right.
You're reading it the wrong way. The only person to blame for sexual assault is the perpetrator, not the victim.
However, a woman who is alone at night walking through a dark park or unlit street is more likely to be attacked than one with friends in a lit area. Likewise a child playing alone in a field is more likely to be kidnapped than one at a public park being supervised by its parents. It doesn't put any blame on the victim.
I don't want to stir up any vitriol, so this will be my last comment on this.
I totally get what you're saying and agree you're right. However, to be clear, my view is that even if a woman is alone at night, walking through a dark park or unlit street, the perpetrator is still one hundred per cent to blame and no responsibility should be put on the victim.
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm sorry, but that's just unacceptable. You cannot, in all honesty, be suggesting that the "body language" of a woman makes them "more likely to be attacked". Maybe you posted this by mistake. If so, and if you delete it, I will certainly delete this post. But if you genuinely and deliberately posted that, it's an outrageous suggestion. It's saying "if a woman gets attacked, she might have been culpable, depending on what her body language was". And, by extension, "her attacker's guilt is lessened by the way she was acting before it happened".
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.
I've not read this thread for a couple of days. Anyway, Chizz it took me all of 10 seconds to prove that what I said is correct.
I hadn't seen that you had posted again. I find any suggestion that a woman might fall prey to an attacker due to her own actions utterly abhorrent. Your original post expounded a view that a woman could be considered culpable when she's attacked. It's an awful suggestion and conjures up the weakest defence of those accused of such unspeakable crimes.
Had you said "man" or "person" instead of "woman", your original intention (which I now understand is different from the inference easily applicable to it) would have been clearer. But, as you chose to use the word "woman", it's easy to infer that you meant "women are sometimes to blame when they're attacked". Which, I am sure you'll agree, is not right.
You're reading it the wrong way. The only person to blame for sexual assault is the perpetrator, not the victim.
However, a woman who is alone at night walking through a dark park or unlit street is more likely to be attacked than one with friends in a lit area. Likewise a child playing alone in a field is more likely to be kidnapped than one at a public park being supervised by its parents. It doesn't put any blame on the victim.
I don't want to stir up any vitriol, so this will be my last comment on this.
I totally get what you're saying and agree you're right. However, to be clear, my view is that even if a woman is alone at night, walking through a dark park or unlit street, the perpetrator is still one hundred per cent to blame and no responsibility should be put on the victim.
The mansion tax as I understand it is really a land tax since in the most expensive parts of the country, the appreciation is a function of land value (building a property is not really very expensive).
Since that land is an asset which has been there for millions of years and has not been 'improved' by owners (unlike say a business), why should they benefit as opposed to the sovereign state by virtue of having the good fortune to live in an era of globalisation?
Similarly a case could be made to tax homeowners who will benefit from Crossrail etc.
POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
I meant cash-poor. For some people, money isn't the most important thing in the world even if it clearly is to you. Ok, yeah, if they're forced to sell due to the mansion tax, then they will be 2 million richer but they will have to move. Also some of these people will be in their 60s and 70s or older - some might not even live long enough to spend that money in a way that's meaningful for them. Just because you can't empathise with these people because you and Muttley seem to lack basic social skills or can't seem to understand anyone living in a situation that doesn't exactly mirror yours but this potential tax is causing people stuck in this situation a lot of unnecessary worry and stress. They would rather lead more humble lives and keep the home they love than have millions but lose the home they love. Especially for older people uprooting themselves can be a stressful time.
No need for the personal stuff Fiiish as you have no idea of peoples own circumstances and experience that influence their views.
The fact is some posters might struggle to have the same level of empathy as you do for a very, very small percentage of the population who might be in the circumstances you describe. Who still have the wherewithal to sell their asset, buy another £1m+ property and trouser a lifetime of earnings of the average person in the meantime btw.
It may be upsetting or inconvenient for the minority of the minority that this tax will effect but perhaps some of us just place greater priority on the needs of the million people who are using food banks in what is supposed to be 21st century Britain or the millions of kids who are currently being brought up in poverty?
POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
I meant cash-poor. For some people, money isn't the most important thing in the world even if it clearly is to you. Ok, yeah, if they're forced to sell due to the mansion tax, then they will be 2 million richer but they will have to move. Also some of these people will be in their 60s and 70s or older - some might not even live long enough to spend that money in a way that's meaningful for them. Just because you can't empathise with these people because you and Muttley seem to lack basic social skills or can't seem to understand anyone living in a situation that doesn't exactly mirror yours but this potential tax is causing people stuck in this situation a lot of unnecessary worry and stress. They would rather lead more humble lives and keep the home they love than have millions but lose the home they love. Especially for older people uprooting themselves can be a stressful time.
No need for the personal stuff Fiiish as you have no idea of peoples own circumstances and experience that influence their views.
The fact is some posters might struggle to have the same level of empathy as you do for a very, very small percentage of the population who might be in the circumstances you describe. Who still have the wherewithal to sell their asset, buy another £1m+ property and trouser a lifetime of earnings of the average person in the meantime btw.
It may be upsetting or inconvenient for the minority of the minority that this tax will effect but perhaps some of us just place greater priority on the needs of the million people who are using food banks in what is supposed to be 21st century Britain or the millions of kids who are currenyly being brought up in poverty?
Except as it has been pointed out this tax will do nothing to help those people. Also Labour has already earmarked the absolutely pitiful amount of money this tax will raise for the NHS.
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So are you saying that there was a global financial crisis rather than a national financial crisis?
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So are you saying that there was a global financial crisis rather than a national financial crisis?
Its quite easy, the rich get richer under a Tory government and the poor get poorer. Always been the case and always will be.
This is only half true. The rich have always gotten richer, whether under Tories or Labour, however neither under the 18 year Tory government or the 5 year Coalition have the poor been left poorer. Figures indicate that the poor will be slightly better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 and that's before you take into account the cyclical effect of the global financial crisis that was still at its peak when the Coalition came to power.
So are you saying that there was a global financial crisis rather than a national financial crisis?
Yes, that is correct.
Would you then say that therefore the last government was not responsible for the financial crisis?
POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
I meant cash-poor. For some people, money isn't the most important thing in the world even if it clearly is to you. Ok, yeah, if they're forced to sell due to the mansion tax, then they will be 2 million richer but they will have to move. Also some of these people will be in their 60s and 70s or older - some might not even live long enough to spend that money in a way that's meaningful for them. Just because you can't empathise with these people because you and Muttley seem to lack basic social skills or can't seem to understand anyone living in a situation that doesn't exactly mirror yours but this potential tax is causing people stuck in this situation a lot of unnecessary worry and stress. They would rather lead more humble lives and keep the home they love than have millions but lose the home they love. Especially for older people uprooting themselves can be a stressful time.
No need for the personal stuff Fiiish as you have no idea of peoples own circumstances and experience that influence their views.
The fact is some posters might struggle to have the same level of empathy as you do for a very, very small percentage of the population who might be in the circumstances you describe. Who still have the wherewithal to sell their asset, buy another £1m+ property and trouser a lifetime of earnings of the average person in the meantime btw.
It may be upsetting or inconvenient for the minority of the minority that this tax will effect but perhaps some of us just place greater priority on the needs of the million people who are using food banks in what is supposed to be 21st century Britain or the millions of kids who are currently being brought up in poverty?
This from The Poverty Site report 2010. More hypocrisy The (Labour) government's short term target was to reduce the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004/05 compared with 1998/99. This implied a maximum of 3.3 million children living in low-income households by 2004/05. Given that the actual number in 2008/09 was 3.9 million, the government is - four years later - still 0.6 million above its target for 2004/05.
POORER?? They've got an asset worth 2 MILLION QUID, and you're calling them poorer? OK, you're either just trolling, or you've completely lost your grip on reality
I meant cash-poor. For some people, money isn't the most important thing in the world even if it clearly is to you. Ok, yeah, if they're forced to sell due to the mansion tax, then they will be 2 million richer but they will have to move. Also some of these people will be in their 60s and 70s or older - some might not even live long enough to spend that money in a way that's meaningful for them. Just because you can't empathise with these people because you and Muttley seem to lack basic social skills or can't seem to understand anyone living in a situation that doesn't exactly mirror yours but this potential tax is causing people stuck in this situation a lot of unnecessary worry and stress. They would rather lead more humble lives and keep the home they love than have millions but lose the home they love. Especially for older people uprooting themselves can be a stressful time.
No need for the personal stuff Fiiish as you have no idea of peoples own circumstances and experience that influence their views.
The fact is some posters might struggle to have the same level of empathy as you do for a very, very small percentage of the population who might be in the circumstances you describe. Who still have the wherewithal to sell their asset, buy another £1m+ property and trouser a lifetime of earnings of the average person in the meantime btw.
It may be upsetting or inconvenient for the minority of the minority that this tax will effect but perhaps some of us just place greater priority on the needs of the million people who are using food banks in what is supposed to be 21st century Britain or the millions of kids who are currently being brought up in poverty?
This from The Poverty Site report 2010. More hypocrisy The (Labour) government's short term target was to reduce the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004/05 compared with 1998/99. This implied a maximum of 3.3 million children living in low-income households by 2004/05. Given that the actual number in 2008/09 was 3.9 million, the government is - four years later - still 0.6 million above its target for 2004/05.
Child Poverty Action Trust Under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise from 2012/13 with an expected 600,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16. This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.7 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020. So, if it got worse under Labour, it's getting much, much worse under the coalition.
Comments
At 45% (+2% national insurance), the balance between what the individual keeps and the state collects seems just about fair, particularly as in this country no reasonable person could claim that citizens receive Scandinavian-quality public services or infrastructure.
But anyway, moving on.
"Labour also say there would be protection for cash-poor but equity-rich owners - likely to be the option of paying the charge from their estate when they die."
Had you said "man" or "person" instead of "woman", your original intention (which I now understand is different from the inference easily applicable to it) would have been clearer. But, as you chose to use the word "woman", it's easy to infer that you meant "women are sometimes to blame when they're attacked". Which, I am sure you'll agree, is not right.
However, a woman who is alone at night walking through a dark park or unlit street is more likely to be attacked than one with friends in a lit area. Likewise a child playing alone in a field is more likely to be kidnapped than one at a public park being supervised by its parents. It doesn't put any blame on the victim.
I totally get what you're saying and agree you're right. However, to be clear, my view is that even if a woman is alone at night, walking through a dark park or unlit street, the perpetrator is still one hundred per cent to blame and no responsibility should be put on the victim.
Since that land is an asset which has been there for millions of years and has not been 'improved' by owners (unlike say a business), why should they benefit as opposed to the sovereign state by virtue of having the good fortune to live in an era of globalisation?
Similarly a case could be made to tax homeowners who will benefit from Crossrail etc.
The fact is some posters might struggle to have the same level of empathy as you do for a very, very small percentage of the population who might be in the circumstances you describe. Who still have the wherewithal to sell their asset, buy another £1m+ property and trouser a lifetime of earnings of the average person in the meantime btw.
It may be upsetting or inconvenient for the minority of the minority that this tax will effect but perhaps some of us just place greater priority on the needs of the million people who are using food banks in what is supposed to be 21st century Britain or the millions of kids who are currently being brought up in poverty?
More hypocrisy
The (Labour) government's short term target was to reduce the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004/05 compared with 1998/99. This implied a maximum of 3.3 million children living in low-income households by 2004/05. Given that the actual number in 2008/09 was 3.9 million, the government is - four years later - still 0.6 million above its target for 2004/05.
Under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise from 2012/13 with an expected 600,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16. This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.7 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020.
So, if it got worse under Labour, it's getting much, much worse under the coalition.