The Showman vs The Lawyer...

[Protheroe]

There you go again!  Do explain how me working for 46 years and my wife working until she is 70 (with five years out for child rearing) and ploughing a good proportion of our incomes into a mortgage makes  our house a “wholly unearned asset”.
Let's have a look eh? My folks' house cost £4,000 in 1974. Inflation would make it worth £42,000. What is its value today do you reckon?

I don’t know if you have your own property but if you do I assume you will gladly dispose of it to pay for your old age care, which comes at an extortionate rate if you have assets. Also not leave an inheritance to children which I’d have thought was a tenent of capitalism.
For many of us under 50 our property is our pension AND the source of our care costs. We do not have the luxury of decent pension provision. I'm  not sure where you get the idea that inheritance is a tenet of capitalism.

The T.V. “Tax” is for the over 75s, at present. People can still take out private pensions and employers have to provide a WPP.
Auto enrolment will be seen as the greatest state misselling scandal in history. The pots most employees will end up with will be worth a pittance, and are likely to count against them in means test.

So you don’t consider it fair for the state pension, barley liveable as it is, to keep up with inflation? 
I don't consider it 'fair' for the rise in the State Pension to be the HIGHER of inflation, wage growth or 2.5%.

The people “screaming blue murder” are simply countering those that incessantly bleat on about the , perceived, feckless .
The only problem I can accept is that some of the elderly benefits are universal.

[Protheroe]

Maybe we should build more housing stock to bring the price of housing down seeing as we have neglected it for the last 30 years.

I have been saying that for two decades, however governments of all colours are obsessed with supporting asset price inflation through ridiculous schemes like "Help to Buy"

[baggy1]

Maybe we should build more housing stock to bring the price of housing down seeing as we have neglected it for the last 30 years.

I have been saying that for two decades, however governments of all colours are obsessed with supporting asset price inflation through ridiculous schemes like "Help to Buy"

We agree on something - I can do some work today on that basis 

[Derek Hardballs]

Perhaps we could get the more well off, multinationals to pay more tax? That’ll never catch on... far better to make averagely well off people sell their houses instead.

There you go again!  Do explain how me working for 46 years and my wife working until she is 70 (with five years out for child rearing) and ploughing a good proportion of our incomes into a mortgage makes  our house a “wholly unearned asset”.
Let's have a look eh? My folks' house cost £4,000 in 1974. Inflation would make it worth £42,000. What is its value today do you reckon?

I don’t know if you have your own property but if you do I assume you will gladly dispose of it to pay for your old age care, which comes at an extortionate rate if you have assets. Also not leave an inheritance to children which I’d have thought was a tenent of capitalism.
For many of us under 50 our property is our pension AND the source of our care costs. We do not have the luxury of decent pension provision. I'm  not sure where you get the idea that inheritance is a tenet of capitalism.

The T.V. “Tax” is for the over 75s, at present. People can still take out private pensions and employers have to provide a WPP.
Auto enrolment will be seen as the greatest state misselling scandal in history. The pots most employees will end up with will be worth a pittance, and are likely to count against them in means test.

So you don’t consider it fair for the state pension, barley liveable as it is, to keep up with inflation? 
I don't consider it 'fair' for the rise in the State Pension to be the HIGHER of inflation, wage growth or 2.5%.

The people “screaming blue murder” are simply countering those that incessantly bleat on about the , perceived, feckless .
The only problem I can accept is that some of the elderly benefits are universal.

The most surprising thing from this reply in fecking orange is you’re under 50! 

Can we not ask those who pay and prop up your party to pay rather than avoid tax? Instead of squeezing the pips out of the middle and working class and dressing it up as a ‘looking after yourself?’ Those billions they made were not done by them on their own but by millions of people across the country at all levels. You knock on doors for a party who is supported and bankrolled by people who have sculpted and manipulated the UK to where it is today. You think they give a shit about people who need to sell their house for care for example? If they were on the Titanic they would don a dress and push their way through the women and children queue to the lifeboat.

[Borin' Baggie]

To add to Proth's points, I've got an effective extra tax of 9% over £25,000 I have to pay because of tuition fees, unless I start making stupid money very quickly I will have that until I'm past middle age because it was designed to be a 30 year graduate tax.

My parents were unskilled workers but they bought their first house at my age and paid off the mortgage in their 40s. At this rate I don't think I'll be in a position to apply for a mortgage until I'm at least 10 years older than they were and I'm getting paid more than both of them combined at the same age even when inflation is taken into account.

Also, at this point I doubt all the NI I am paying and will have paid in will give me a state pension to supplement retirement income.

We've already got the biggest tax burden since the late 1960s and the under 35s have additions like student fees, a private pension and are renting longer to add to it.

---

Maybe we should build more housing stock to bring the price of housing down seeing as we have neglected it for the last 30 years.

I have been saying that for two decades, however governments of all colours are obsessed with supporting asset price inflation through ridiculous schemes like "Help to Buy"

I'm not having that, just the red and blue ones. The Lib Dems tried to get 10 garden towns built during the coalition but the Tories strung them along on that policy and it's been shelved. The Liberals also opposed the green belt legislation passed by the postwar Attlee and Churchill governments that stopped more housing being built.

Birmingham has fewer houses now than it did in 1935 for God's sakes.

---

Perhaps we could get the more well off, multinationals to pay more tax? That’ll never catch on... far better to make averagely well off people sell their houses instead.

Why? A lot of the tax that they avoid is often made up by employees and due to the number of tax havens we have (including the City of London) loads of companies are based here paying that tax that they ordinarily wouldn't.

I'd rather they introduce a land value tax, wealth is tied up in land and only those who have a lot of land (rich private estates) or a normal amount of expensive land (people who houses in central London) will be paying back. Also it encourages building up as land costs will go up making it more efficient to build dense houses and flats in cities.

[Derek Hardballs]

To add to Proth's points, I've got an effective extra tax of 9% over £25,000 I have to pay because of tuition fees, unless I start making stupid money very quickly I will have that until I'm past middle age because it was designed to be a 30 year graduate tax.

My parents were unskilled workers but they bought their first house at my age and paid off the mortgage in their 40s. At this rate I don't think I'll be in a position to apply for a mortgage until I'm at least 10 years older than they were and I'm getting paid more than both of them combined at the same age even when inflation is taken into account.

Also, at this point I doubt all the NI I am paying and will have paid in will give me a state pension to supplement retirement income.

We've already got the biggest tax burden since the late 1960s and the under 35s have additions like student fees, a private pension and are renting longer to add to it.

---

Maybe we should build more housing stock to bring the price of housing down seeing as we have neglected it for the last 30 years.

I have been saying that for two decades, however governments of all colours are obsessed with supporting asset price inflation through ridiculous schemes like "Help to Buy"

I'm not having that, just the red and blue ones. The Lib Dems tried to get 10 garden towns built during the coalition but the Tories strung them along on that policy and it's been shelved. The Liberals also opposed the green belt legislation passed by the postwar Attlee and Churchill governments that stopped more housing being built.

Birmingham has fewer houses now than it did in 1935 for God's sakes.

---

Perhaps we could get the more well off, multinationals to pay more tax? That’ll never catch on... far better to make averagely well off people sell their houses instead.

Why? A lot of the tax that they avoid is often made up by employees and due to the number of tax havens we have (including the City of London) loads of companies are based here paying that tax that they ordinarily wouldn't.

I'd rather they introduce a land value tax, wealth is tied up in land and only those who have a lot of land (rich private estates) or a normal amount of expensive land (people who houses in central London) will be paying back. Also it encourages building up as land costs will go up making it more efficient to build dense houses and flats in cities.

Because whilst young and old, working class and middle class argue amongst themselves those pulling the strings and getting obscenely rich and influential sit back and watch the bun fight between us all safe in the knowledge they get all the benefits and are able to carry on regardless.

[Borin' Baggie]

Because whilst young and old, working class and middle class argue amongst themselves those pulling the strings and getting obscenely rich and influential sit back and watch the bun fight between us all safe in the knowledge they get all the benefits and are able to carry on regardless.

The point is that cracking down on the tax avoidance of multinationals isn't going to do much. We're one of the biggest tax havens in the world, those countries using that advantage would leave and we'd get nothing plus the workers they employ would be out of a job and not paying tax. And a lot of those multinationals either have a high income but high expenses or use tax relief schemes with respect to charity (our club do this with the funding for the Albion foundation for example).

The ultimate fact is we need to tax wealth as that is where the money is tied up, not income. That goes for people and corporations. Why do you think the establishment has tried to block the Liberal/Lib Dem land value tax for 110 years?

[baggy1]

The most surprising thing from this reply in fecking orange is you’re under 50! 

I know - that one got me as well 

[JOK]

There you go again!  Do explain how me working for 46 years and my wife working until she is 70 (with five years out for child rearing) and ploughing a good proportion of our incomes into a mortgage makes  our house a “wholly unearned asset”.
Let's have a look eh? My folks' house cost £4,000 in 1974. Inflation would make it worth £42,000. What is its value today do you reckon?

I don’t know if you have your own property but if you do I assume you will gladly dispose of it to pay for your old age care, which comes at an extortionate rate if you have assets. Also not leave an inheritance to children which I’d have thought was a tenent of capitalism.
For many of us under 50 our property is our pension AND the source of our care costs. We do not have the luxury of decent pension provision. I'm  not sure where you get the idea that inheritance is a tenet of capitalism.

The T.V. “Tax” is for the over 75s, at present. People can still take out private pensions and employers have to provide a WPP.
Auto enrolment will be seen as the greatest state misselling scandal in history. The pots most employees will end up with will be worth a pittance, and are likely to count against them in means test.

So you don’t consider it fair for the state pension, barley liveable as it is, to keep up with inflation? 
I don't consider it 'fair' for the rise in the State Pension to be the HIGHER of inflation, wage growth or 2.5%.

The people “screaming blue murder” are simply countering those that incessantly bleat on about the , perceived, feckless .
The only problem I can accept is that some of the elderly benefits are universal.

No need to lose yer temper Old Bean.

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?

[Protheroe]

Can we not ask those who pay and prop up your party to pay rather than avoid tax?

 
By and large they do pay up Dekka. It's another soundbite from Dekka's Cheap & Lazy Soundbite Compendium.

---

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?

---

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.

If you invest in stocks and shares outside an ISA and increase unearned wealth you'll pay Capital Gains Tax. Why don't you pay Capital Gains Tax on unearned housing wealth? It's a huge tax break.

I think Inheritance Tax ought to be abolished, as it's purely voluntary and falls most heavily on the hard of thinking.

A fair rise in the State Pension is with average earnings, not the Higher of earnings, inflation or 2.5%.