The Showman vs The Lawyer...
#51
(05-15-2020, 12:52 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(05-15-2020, 11:21 AM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: Why do you think the establishment has tried to block the Liberal/Lib Dem land value tax for 110 years?

Beacause it's the fairest and least avoidable tax on wealth?


That was kind of my point, and I was trying to get Dekka to say it
Reply
#52
(05-14-2020, 09:49 PM)The liquidator Wrote: It's like your going around in circles hoping the likes of Amazon are going to have a conscience they will never pay there way .....

That choice shouldn't be Amazon's to make - however much that might often appear to be the case. Governments should be the ones to set fiscal policy, and in the interests of everybody, not just those who can afford to buy access for aggressive lobbyists.

I don't know of anyone on the centre-left (I'm talking about actual acquaintances now - not talking heads and politicos) who is enthusiastic for punitively taxing individuals. The consensus seems to be that corporations have got away with too much for too long; it's a view that I share.
Reply
#53
(05-15-2020, 12:52 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(05-15-2020, 11:21 AM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: Why do you think the establishment has tried to block the Liberal/Lib Dem land value tax for 110 years?

Beacause it's the fairest and least avoidable tax on wealth?


Yes, it's very difficult to shift 50,000 hectares of Perthshire to Luxembourg.

Not only has land value been given a free pass in terms of its tax avoidance potential, insult has been added to injury by the accumulation of subsidies based purely on acreage owned, with little or no intervention or improvement (and in many cases absolutely none!) by the landowner. Unless allowing open-grazing of sheep or burning vegetation for grouse shooting counts as 'improvement'.

And, unfortunately, the CAP decreed that it does indeed count, and the more they own the more they get. And I say that as someone who was, and is, very much a remainer.
Reply
#54
(05-15-2020, 02:04 PM)Ossian Wrote: And I say that as someone who was, and is, very much a remainer.

Is this controversial? It's a purely protectionist measure designed to prop up unsustainable farming practices and actively encourages wasteful use of land. You don't need to like every aspect of the EU to be a remainer, I hate most things about it and voted remain.

If we want to pay people to hoard land, at least make it the hoarding undeveloped or reforested land.
Reply
#55
(05-15-2020, 12:52 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(05-15-2020, 11:21 AM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: Why do you think the establishment has tried to block the Liberal/Lib Dem land value tax for 110 years?

Beacause it's the fairest and least avoidable tax on wealth?

(05-15-2020, 12:13 PM)JOK Wrote: Ok you say your property is your pension. If you have to sell it for care for one of you. Where does the other live and what on? Mind, you’ll still be working until your eighty before you get state aid by that time. Of course you won’t draw your state pension because it’s against your doctrine to look after the less well off adequately and not burden the youngsters with the cost.
My Sister-in-Law’s mother had to go into a home and had to finance it through the sale of her 2 bed bungalow. Which as it was near the coast in Devon realised £249,950. She had to pay full costs to the Home as the council would not contribute. Her assets were going to last for under 4.5 years! With one year left her daughter was starting to panic. Would her mom have to move home to a “more affordable “ home, one the council would pay for? 
Our 2 bed and a box room house cost £15,000 in 1978 (up from £11k thanks to guzumping ) My wage at that time was £35 pw. (£202 today) that job now pays c £16,000 per annum (£307 pw) so wages have also risen above inflation. If I had invested in Stocks and Shares instead of a mortgage I’m willing to bet many of those stocks would be worth a lot more than the house. Are capital gains no “wholly unearned assets”? Not to mention, it’s your favoured system, which you would like to be even more ruthless (sorry, competitive) which has driven the extortionately upward trend in property values. (The argument for who is to blame of the supply and demand question is another matter. I, for one, would suggest the ‘Right to Buy’ is a good start.)
I didn’t have a great deal of disposable income in the ‘80s and ‘90s but listened to the advice to take out a pension to make our elderly lives a little more comfortable. If you chose not to invest in a pension... 
Auto enrolment but the employee has the right to withdraw.
So, your are obviously in favour of punitive inheritance tax then. 
What would you consider a “fair” rise in the state pension?

The answer to your first question is - I won't be living in a house this big in a top school catchment by the time I / we need care. The value we'll be able to extract in addition to a modest pension will be enough to see us through.

A fair rise in the State Pension is with average earnings, not the Higher of earnings, inflation or 2.5%.
Gordon Bennett trying to follow the different figures and terms in this area is mind boggling! But as far as I can see, average wage rises for ‘ordinary’ pay (not counting bonuses) was 1.8% allowing for inflation last year
Doing a few very, very rough calcs using 1.8% and assuming no increase in personal allowance. 
Say a person on £20,000 p.a. add £360. Nat ins. £44
                                                                     Income Tax. £104 
ends up with £ 216. ( Ish) net. p.a.

A State pensioner, (born after 1951). Receives £175 pw add £3.15
Equates to an additional £163 p.a.

Ergo. The pensioner is always falling back in real terms. So can I confirm you consider that fair? 
So you don’t want pensions to keep up with inflation. And you would be happy for working class pensioners, who have struggled to provided themselves with a modest home to pay a tax on the Freehold? Many do not and never have lived in a “big” house and could not afford to buy into a “good school” area so can not downsize. Like me for instance. Unless you want us all to live in one bedroom flats and get rid of a lifetime’s worth of memories and personal treasures.
What would you use to calculate the pension increase? Or do you think there should be no State pension? 
Reply
#56
(05-16-2020, 06:54 AM)JOK Wrote: Gordon Bennett trying to follow the different figures and terms in this area is mind boggling! But as far as I can see, average wage rises for ‘ordinary’ pay (not counting bonuses) was 1.8% allowing for inflation last year
Doing a few very, very rough calcs using 1.8% and assuming no increase in personal allowance. 
Say a person on £20,000 p.a. add £360. Nat ins. £44
                                                                     Income Tax. £104 
ends up with £ 216. ( Ish) net. p.a.

A State pensioner, (born after 1951). Receives £175 pw add £3.15
Equates to an additional £163 p.a.

Ergo. The pensioner is always falling back in real terms. So can I confirm you consider that fair? 
So you don’t want pensions to keep up with inflation. And you would be happy for working class pensioners, who have struggled to provided themselves with a modest home to pay a tax on the Freehold? Many do not and never have lived in a “big” house and could not afford to buy into a “good school” area so can not downsize. Like me for instance. Unless you want us all to live in one bedroom flats and get rid of a lifetime’s worth of memories and personal treasures.
What would you use to calculate the pension increase? Or do you think there should be no State pension? 

If average wages increase above inflation, and pensioners receive an increase linked to average wages - then how can they be falling behind in real terms? You've lost me I'm afraid.
Reply
#57
Never trust a lawyer or a showman.
Reply
#58
Especially a lawyer .
Reply
#59
(05-16-2020, 07:30 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(05-16-2020, 06:54 AM)JOK Wrote: Gordon Bennett trying to follow the different figures and terms in this area is mind boggling! But as far as I can see, average wage rises for ‘ordinary’ pay (not counting bonuses) was 1.8% allowing for inflation last year
Doing a few very, very rough calcs using 1.8% and assuming no increase in personal allowance. 
Say a person on £20,000 p.a. add £360. Nat ins. £44
                                                                     Income Tax. £104 
ends up with £ 216. ( Ish) net. p.a.

A State pensioner, (born after 1951). Receives £175 pw add £3.15
Equates to an additional £163 p.a.

Ergo. The pensioner is always falling back in real terms. So can I confirm you consider that fair? 
So you don’t want pensions to keep up with inflation. And you would be happy for working class pensioners, who have struggled to provided themselves with a modest home to pay a tax on the Freehold? Many do not and never have lived in a “big” house and could not afford to buy into a “good school” area so can not downsize. Like me for instance. Unless you want us all to live in one bedroom flats and get rid of a lifetime’s worth of memories and personal treasures.
What would you use to calculate the pension increase? Or do you think there should be no State pension? 

If average wages increase above inflation, and pensioners receive an increase linked to average wages - then how can they be falling behind in real terms? You've lost me I'm afraid.

I was thinking the same.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)