Home—Blog—Mansion or hard-working family home? Take the test
Feb 25, 2013, 02:48
Posted byMerryn Somerset Webb
Comments (34)
Published in Blog More articles by Merryn Somerset Webb
By Merryn Somerset Webb, May 16, 2013
By Merryn Somerset Webb, May 07, 2013
May 02, 2013
By Merryn Somerset Webb, Apr 22, 2013
Leave a comment
(25 February 2013, 04:03PM) Complain about this comment
A few people have asked what the message of the quiz is. There isn;t really one. It's just fun. But it does show v clearly that a mansion tax is really just a location tax - be that good or bad.
(25 February 2013, 04:15PM) Complain about this comment
Surely it's a wealth tax, not a location tax? Yes, no doubt there are a couple of old spinsters who inherited their house in 1923 and aren't that wealthy, but no tax is 100% fair. However 99% of people who can afford to own a £2m house are pretty wealthy, no matter how big is it or where it's located.I feel fairly ambivalent about the concept though I'm never likely to be troubled by it, but faulting it based on floor area is not really valid.It might be simpler to just charge £100k a time for an entry visa for Russian and Saudi applicants.
(25 February 2013, 04:17PM) Complain about this comment
If theres no point then whats the point in doing it?I think the government should just resign, they are not fit for purpose. It all went wrong after 1688 when William of Orange failed to make england part of France.
(25 February 2013, 04:24PM) Complain about this comment
I scored 18%. I think you just chose random pictures and said they were silly prices. That was riduculus. I blame the Romans, abandoning us to these heathen barbarian warlords and their 'monachy' system of direct taxation to fun overseas wars facilitated through the formation of a three teired parliament with a house of common which was all a compromise so the King could tax directly and not how the romans did it at all.
(25 February 2013, 05:05PM) Complain about this comment
Very amusing.btw William of Orange was from the Netherlands (even if the family is from France).
(25 February 2013, 05:17PM) Complain about this comment
@me. All houses currently for sale or recently valued! Honest. It isn't us that makes the crazy prices. It's the market. Oh and the ultra low interest rates and the skewed tax regime..
(25 February 2013, 06:30PM) Complain about this comment
I am ready for politics.My forecast -70% all round from 2007 peak. Nominal prices no need for inflation, although inflation is coming but not where everyone wants it.The Shard, in hindsight, will probably mark the peak in London prices. There will be pain for all you"property developers" "its my pension" "not getting returns anywhere"people. Nothing is as painful as capital loss. The people that got youinto this will not be the ones to clear this mess. Just another trap.
(25 February 2013, 08:08PM) Complain about this comment
Thank, Merryn, I was wondering why the bar was set at £2M and now I know: it's so Ed Miliband won't have to pay his new tax (BTW what's the betting he won't in the future, either and like the council tax, that £2M will be "2013 prices" for evermore).
(25 February 2013, 08:29PM) Complain about this comment
I got one wrong (!).I'm not really sure what the issue with these things are as surely everyone by now knows that any 2 bed flat in the right part of London starts at about £2m.It might seem crazy but there it is.And 5 bed Georgian houses in Edinburgh, and massive stately homes in the countryside (which are hugely costly to maintain) cost less than £2m.Which is probably a sensible price.
(25 February 2013, 08:59PM) Complain about this comment
#5 meme. I think that was me's point. William invaded England to keep oit on side in the wars with France. William aimed to conquer France with England's help. It was him that tied us to a national Debt in 1692 to help fund his vanity wars.
(25 February 2013, 09:02PM) Complain about this comment
@BayardSo you really think that the Mansion Tax has been set at £2m because Ed Milliband's house is £1.95m.Even if it were worth £2.1m he'd only be paying £1000 pa. And you do realise he supports the 50p tax rate that financially impacts him (or rather Mrs M).
(26 February 2013, 09:27AM) Complain about this comment
Hang on a minute, the 'mansions' in this competition may be valued at £2m plus, but who owns them, the householder or the mortgage company?
(26 February 2013, 10:40AM) Complain about this comment
Hold on! You've all got it wrong, surely. Shouldn't we be demanding that the government REDUCES SPENDING, not finding new ways of taxing us?Let's look at the root cause of this problem.r.
(26 February 2013, 12:17PM) Complain about this comment
"r"Where do you get the idea this is about raising taxes or avoiding reducing spending (which is an entirely separate issue anyway).Everyone I have ever heard propose a Mansion Tax has done so as a means of rebalancing taxation. A MT on (unearned) wealth would be offset by lower taxes on income, jobs or entrepreneurialism.For instance, the Lib Dems have clearly said a MT would be used to fund raising income tax threshold. Labour want to use it to fund a cut in Nat Insurance. And most Tories who propose it suggest cuts to income tax & CGT.
(26 February 2013, 12:25PM) Complain about this comment
"So you really think that the Mansion Tax has been set at £2m because Ed Milliband's house is £1.95m?"I'd like to think I was being tongue in cheek, but I wouldn't want to put money on it. It doesn't matter anyway, because it's only political kite-flying: it's not going to happen, any more than Cast-iron Dave's referendum.
(26 February 2013, 12:52PM) Complain about this comment
This is an abomination of a tax. My house, cost me £3m to build, out of £5 to6m of earned and taxed income. Probably now worth £2m and I would like to retire with my wife and spend a little time planting trees and looking after the wildlife. Why should I pay again. Because I can, is the answer, and let me tell you, it will be one tax too many for me. I shall not shut the door behind me as I leave, as there will be many others following. I have done my bit for the country already. At some point we will have to realise that UK PLC will go bust, if we do not sort out spending. Save the future and introduce universal suffrage, but on this basis. Your votes count each election by the relative proportion of tax you pay. NO tax, no vote. Big contributed big vote. Let us have some respect for those who like me have never shirked their taxes. We should stop non-contibutor votes counting. Otherwise, we ARE doomed.
(26 February 2013, 01:46PM) Complain about this comment
Well said, Paulos: "Let us have some respect for those who like me have never shirked their taxes. We should stop non-contibutor votes counting. Otherwise, we ARE doomed."In amongst all the lightweight ramblings, your comment has substance.
(26 February 2013, 01:49PM) Complain about this comment
@Shinsei1967Because I am old enough and cynical enough to know that NO government will willingly reduce taxes of any form if they can get away with people still paying them! We are taxed to the hilt in this country (and most of the EU) and, until we get a government that starts looking after the needs of the population, we will only have more "tinkering" at the edges; that is all that the MT is, tinkering at the edges.r.
(26 February 2013, 01:52PM) Complain about this comment
@Paulos and @HL:This looks like a good idea - a sort of "he who pays the piper . . . ".r.
(26 February 2013, 02:01PM) Complain about this comment
rWhere is the evidence that we are taxed to the hilt ? Or rather that taxes keep rising ever upwards. UK tax take as a percentage of GDP has been remarkably steady at 36-39% for the last 50 years. Taxes aren't getting ever higher. Where and on whom the tax burden falls may change over the years but as a society we collectively pay as much tax as we did when I was born in 1967.
(26 February 2013, 03:13PM) Complain about this comment
Can't see a problem with mansion tax. And yes it should be based on value rather then floo area. If somone is wealthy and stupid enougph to pay £2m for a sewer-sit less generous in terms of personal space than a coffin from Harrods it is perfectly fair that they should pay. What is much more unfair is progressive tax rate. It penalises those families where one member has to work like hell because other family members are uneployed / in ill health etc. Why don't you argue for a flat rate income tax instead?
(26 February 2013, 04:28PM) Complain about this comment
The Mansion Tax is pure social engineering. Governments are put in place to run the Country as sensibly and economically as possible; they are not elected to indulge in social engineering - but that is what the politicians appear to be wedded to. When I was young in the 1940's, politicians and senior Civil Servants were greatly respected people; as far as I am concerned, no more. They are merely posturing, manipulating mountebanks who have seldom done anything or been anywhere other than in the ivory towers of politics. They cut their teeth on dishonesty and develop accordingly.
(26 February 2013, 05:49PM) Complain about this comment
@Shinsei196736-39% is not being taxed to the hilt? OK, so it's a matter of opinion. Look at recent years alone: VAT at its highest level; fuel tax at its highest level; more people in the higher band tax rates than ever; pension dividends being taxed; pension pots and savings being eroded by repeated "quantitive easing" (it's still a tax because it is taking value from our savings to finance the government) . . . and, despite all that, the government is still spending more than it takes in. If you are happy with that ever-increasing burden, OK, then we must agree to differ.My opinion is that government should be made (by the electorate) to reduce its spending and waste bill and properly finance the things we really need in this country. Tinkering with the edge will only pacify some for a limited period of time - it will not remove the root cause of the problem. @John Clee has a good point which is true for all governments of recent (and not so recent) years.r.
(26 February 2013, 10:37PM) Complain about this comment
This is why we can't pay off the national debt:http://order-order.com/2012/12/30/on-the-dole-because-he-didnt-want-to-get-up-at-800-a-m/
(26 February 2013, 11:17PM) Complain about this comment
If it brings down house prices, then it's good. Buy to letters need to be taxed more by not allowing them to offset tax against pretty much everything. First time buyers need to be able to enter the market at a reasonable price rather than at current hugely inflated ones. The only way not to achieve it is by concreting over more of our countryside.
(27 February 2013, 09:57AM) Complain about this comment
S1967, you answer your opening question in your next paragraph. If the tax take has been constant for 50 years then that demonstrates that we are taxed to the hilt, i.e. the government takes as much tax from the electorate that the electorate can stand for. That is why all this talk of a Mansion Tax is mere posturing. The government knows it cannot up the tax take any more without either riots by the poor or the rich and influential having a dropping a quiet but effective word in its collective ear. The only option is to cut spending. Despite all the shroud-waving by the host of parasites that have attached themselves to the state during the tenure of the last Labour government, it remains a fact that we only have to reduce public spending to what it was in the early years of the Blair administration (adjusted for inflation) to run a large surplus and begin paying off the national debt.
(27 February 2013, 10:17AM) Complain about this comment
24Orb: B*****ks, not to put too fine a point on it. Have you any idea of the size of the deficit, i.e. the amount by which the government increases the national debt every year, let alone the national debt? It's in the £Bns. Compare that with the cost of keeping this person on the dole for a year and the expression "drop in the ocean" should spring to mind.
(27 February 2013, 10:26AM) Complain about this comment
'Baynard:[I]" . . . . . it remains a fact that we only have to reduce public spending to what it was in the early years of the Blair administration . . . . . "[/I]Hooray, some more common sense. It will only take another 20m people to think like this and we could get a government that will get us out of the mire!r.
(27 February 2013, 10:36AM) Complain about this comment
Surely the main point is that having bought a house (arguably of any value) most of us are financially extended for a number of years and are the last people able to pay more tax.
(27 February 2013, 11:03AM) Complain about this comment
" . . . . . it remains a fact that we only have to reduce public spending to what it was in the early years of the Blair administration . . . . . "Bayard, you are absolutely right. Our problems stem from the latter half of the last Labour government when the state overspend got completely out of control. Unfortunately, 'r' at #20 is also correct. Rather like the food manufacturers who get us all hooked on high calorie meals, it's difficult to ween people off the sugar rush of welfare handouts and other state largesse now that they've grown accustomed to it. What we need is a strong government willing to make fundamental changes. Will we get one? I hope so. If we don't, the alternative is likely to be years of coalition, which will essentially mean an extension of the last few years for the foreseeable future.
(27 February 2013, 11:26AM) Complain about this comment
Bayard @27, if only this guy was a unique case. And, if only social welfare spending was the only area requiring fiscal discipline. Is an effort likely to be made to address such issues? Really?If only JT's hope @31 for a 'strong government' could be realistic. Sadly I fear there is nothing more hopeless than hope itself. We are in for some tough times in the years to come... Buy gold!
(27 February 2013, 05:04PM) Complain about this comment
31Orb. Even if there were 10,000 others like him, it would still be a drop in the ocean. It is better to pay a man a little to do nothing than pay him a lot to do nothing that is useful. That is where all the extra spending the last Labour government introduced went, not to people on the dole, but to people in work and public employees doing things that didn't need to be done, an army of facilitators and coordinators. Unlike our sluggard in the paper, these people work hard all day, five days a week, but what they do doesn't actually benefit anybody except themselves, so the net result is exactly the same.
(27 February 2013, 05:17PM) Complain about this comment
30JT: Unfortunately, there is no huge budget that can be cut to solve all the country's problems. The overspend is made up of thousands of small increases in spending, each one having to be identified and cut individually. Who will be directly affected by these cuts? the bureaucracy. Who will be adminstering the cuts? er, the same bureaucracy. That is why the current lot try and place the blame on the recipients of welfare: they are not in a position to sabotage the very cuts they are supposed to be administering.
(27 February 2013, 09:12PM) Complain about this comment
@33,"Who will be directly affected by these cuts? the bureaucracy. Who will be adminstering the cuts? er, the same bureaucracy."Now you're writing like I'm thinking; from 30:"Is an effort likely to be made to address such issues? Really?"All you need to do now is expand your analysis and we'll be on the same wavelength.
Name This will be the name displayed with your comment.
Email This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.
Comment Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.
To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.
Enter the text from the box above
Remember my details
By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.
Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.
20 May 13
16 May 13
16 April BBC Radio Scotland(From 1h 45m in)
21 March Radio 4: Moneybox Live
12 March Photogallery of Merryn's talk at BAB London
Become a smarter investor in just 3 minutes a day.
MoneyWeek is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.