Speaking at the Tory conference this morning, George Osborne ruled out a mansion tax, saying the wealthy would have to pay in other ways.
He said on BBC Radio 4 this morning: "The rich need to contribute more. But you can't just balance the budgets on the wallets of the rich. We've got to look at a very large welfare bill and find savings there. The rich are paying more in tax than they did in any one year of the last Labour government," and that he was "very clear" that the wealthy will pay in the coming years via alternative methods.
He also said:
- He wanted to cut £10bn from the welfare budget - by also limiting benefits
- Austerity could last until 2018
- A 50p top tax rate is a "phoney conception of fairness"
What do you think of the mansion tax being ruled out? Are you confident that the Government will make the wealthy pay in other ways, or do you think they should pay at all? Are they right to focus on cutting the welfare budget instead? Let us know your views!
Replies (22)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
The rich are paying more...
although he then used SDLT as one of the examples....which of course for the very rich has been optional (see the various schemes) - and for the rest...well it depends if you move....hardly a dependable source of income. I have to say he was very poor in his interview this morning on 5 live....he got rattled a few times....by straight forward questions, not sure whether he felt he was above being questioned....but it sounded like it. (its a pity really because some of the things he has to say on benefits is sensible....but lost on his insistence that the rich are already carrying too much of the burden by paying 45%....when they do that is!)
Taxing the Mansion
I thought that was just a new euphenism you crazy kids had come up with! You'll all be drinking liquid nitrogen next.
I wouldn't mind having my mansion taxed though... all I need...
Well if the GO interview this morning
was anything to go by apparently £2mil houses are more common than i first thought....it seems they are 'ten a penny'.....which is why this tax would be unfair.....
How...
... can austerity last until 2018? Love 'em or hate 'em, we'll be getting a Labour government again in 2015, and they're not exactly famous for their austerity.
mansion tax is unfair
as its the government and the broken banking system which directly conributed to the unrealstic rise in house prices over the last few years. Just ask someone in Ireland about that.
Some people have benefited from a dramatic rise in the value of there home and have done absolutely nothing to contribute to that, thats not their fault at all - thats why the mansion tax was always a bit of a silly proposition.
Its the fact that a mansion tax is the best that the lib dems can come up with which is the biggest worry.
They need to stop bleeting on about taxing the rich more and say what they mean, everyone needs to contibute more if you want things to stay as they are so everyone needs to pay more tax. As that isnt happening, they need to cut the bills aswell - welfare is the biggest one, so its a prime target.
Welfare
"The rich need to contribute more. But you can't just balance the budgets on the wallets of the rich. We've got to look at a very large welfare bill and find savings there "
Hasn't he already cut about £18bn from the welfare budget? Still seems like the poor are proportionately shouldering more of the burden than the rich.
Tories making political decisions/policies and using the deficit to justify them?
the only worry is
that the 10 billion is probably spent locally....where as much of the proposed millionaire taxes that are not collected would remain outside of the country or in a bank account....you tell me which will help grow the economy....?!
Kill the poor?
So is it the learned board members' view that, since the wealthy don't want to pay more tax, and so will avoid it anyway, that savings have to be made at the bottom.
What we could do is only make healthcare available to those with insurance to pay for it, then the poor folk wouldn't live so long and wouldn't be scrounging so many benefits.
But then there's only the middle left to squeeze.
Why indeed...
Why should rich people subsidise the living standards of poor people?
... because they fought in the war perhaps?
By the way Mr Osborne... don't tax me. Tax someone else.
SDLT...
applies to properties with a value as low as £125k (hardly a mansion)....council tax - applied to all properties (and you will pay whether you own or rent) and it has an upper threshold, so i am not sure either of these taxes could be seen as mansion taxes....
SDLT is only 1% at £125k,
SDLT is only 1% at £125k, which doesn't touch the sides. Its 4% over £500k and 5% over £1mil, which, trust me on this one, is a heck of a lot of money just to move house. It makes estate agents look like a bargain.
That's a "mansion tax" if ever I saw one.
Council tax goes up based on the size of your house. People in bigger houses dont always use more services, in fact at the top end they probably use less (eg children grown up or in private school, go private for medical etc)
Its probably fair to say SDLT
is an expense everybody could do without when moving....but its all in context (not too many people on an average wage will be moving into a £1million house.....trust me on this one!
Of course not everybody has kids and I dare say emptying my bin each week (seemingly the only council service I use) is comfortably covered by the CT i pay, even in my little house.
There are lots of poor people around
... but they don't have any kids, so they don't matter.
Could you manage on £50 per week? Yes, they could get means tested benefits, but they really aren't worth having unless you have kids.
I do wonder what type of society some people
want....more beggars on the streets, more crime and disorder, overgrown hedgerows etc etc...i am sure we all live near a town that already seems to have acquired these elements.....one only imagines where we would be if we decide to reduce the benefits to a level where people feel they have no hope....and therefore nothing to lose in committing crime etc.
The equivalent to the optimum tax that someone is willing to pay to apparently stay in the country is not just reserved for the rich.....the poor may see a similar level of benefits below which they feel it is not worth being a law abiding citizen.
What is Poor?
We are all guilty of certain things when it comes to affluent prejudice - often unitentionally, I grew up in my Nan's council house where my mum lived and my Nan (at 94) still lives. So I know what poor is to her and a lot of people around her in the area.
One thing we need to straighten is the distinction between poor/less well off who do need help (those who earn £12k pa on a supermarket till, live frugally and struggle to pay their rent, council tax petrol etc) and those who think "if I have another kid the "caaaancil" (council) will give me a bigger flat and more benefits"
The key is to ensure those who abuse/cheat/work the system are the ones whom benefit is cut from and to bring it to a level that encourages work - one of my schoolfriends lost his job (car cleaning at a local Mercedes dealership) where he earned some £20k - not a lot with a child and a CSA bill (divorced) and a two bed flat with all the bills - after being unemployed for a few months trying to find reasonable work he gave up as he estimated he needed to earn £25k to be in the same net position as he was on the benefit system. - so if George or any other politician can fix this anomolly that will be a start.
And with regard taxing the rich (so to speak) we all know that the lower the tax rates the more tax is collected so we can all bash the wealthy (the papers are good at it) but if the really wealthy are "taxed to the hilt" they will leave the country or find a better accountant than their existing one to minimise their tax liability (all within the law of course) (I was on a course recently where the example was given of the Russioan tax systems where the tax take went up by (I recall) 6 times after the rate was dropped to some 12% (apologies to the lecturer if my recollection is wrong)
The whole tax and welfare debate is one which politicians all use to try and gain a few votes by saying the right thing to grab headlines and votes but ultimately the underlying tax system will be "not that different" whichever party is in charge (and yes before anyone says that is not the case It is just my opinion and one of the reasons I have stopped voting - although my dislike of one of the current party leaders will possibly make me vote against his party in 2015)
Anyhow, rant/waffle/moan over - just adding my tuppenceworth to a very interesting debate!
I would love to pay
Tax at just 12%......and I will be joining a very long queue....I suspect however that the same benefits/public services etc will not be available, no matter how many millionaires consider this a deal worth moving for....to say I am sceptical is an understatement.
I'm not convinced either
It appears that some people/corporations are only happy with 1 or 2% tax ... they prefer to line the pockets of their tax advisers and tax avoidance scheme providers rather than contribute to the well being of the country where they reside and the other citizens of the country, which includes the well being of the people they employ and the people who buy their goods/services.
I would like to to think that everyone would be willing to pay 20%, with no aggressive avoidance and no evasion, but I'm a hopeless optimist at times.