Picked utterly at random.....
Ilford
Walthamstow
Loughton
Note the unsalubrious areas I chose. It'd be good if you'd withdraw the "very rich" comment.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
UKIP win Clacton by-election by a landslide
- Thread starter MikeG
- Start date
Picked utterly at random.....
Ilford
Walthamstow
Loughton
Note the unsalubrious areas I chose. It'd be good if you'd withdraw the "very rich" comment.
Skepticemea
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,771
All three.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
It has to be a soft-top, so you can cruise into an Italian village (i.e. Portmeirion for bugetary reasons), wearing shades, looking for the heroine-of-the-week to save.
Anything that still looks good after a dust-up with the local villains (Derren Nesbitt, Keith Buckley, and/or Roger Delgado).
Yes, £325k in assets is very rich by any standard.
OK, whatever.......
I'll take a silver Fiat Dino Spider then.
Then I think a tan safari suit (like a Roger Moore Bond) is probably the way forwards.
You see, if you owned this place in Caephilly outright, and nothing else, and I owned this place in Loughton outright, and nothing else........who is richer?
By your criteria I am very rich and deserve to have part of my asset removed for redistribution, yet you, with (physically) all-but-identical assets, fall way outside the "very rich" criteria. I'm afraid I just don't see the world that way.
By your criteria I am very rich and deserve to have part of my asset removed for redistribution, yet you, with (physically) all-but-identical assets, fall way outside the "very rich" criteria. I'm afraid I just don't see the world that way.
I can't believe I'm allowing myself to be dragged off topic - I'll report myself.
The value of your assets in pounds sterling is the standard measure of wealth in the UK. on the grounds that it's readily convertible into other assets, goods and services. You're welcome to think that the top 3% of estates doesn't represent the very rich, maybe you're right, maybe they're just the rich. In any case once the person who owns those assets is dead (the point at which those assets are transferred) then they have no more use for those assets.
If there was anyone at the top of the list of people I'd want to pay for the measures which will increase social and economic mobility then it's rich dead people and alive poor people would be at the bottom of the list. Removing inheritance tax would tend to shift the burden of taxation from rich dead people to more alive, less rich people.
The value of your assets in pounds sterling is the standard measure of wealth in the UK. on the grounds that it's readily convertible into other assets, goods and services. You're welcome to think that the top 3% of estates doesn't represent the very rich, maybe you're right, maybe they're just the rich. In any case once the person who owns those assets is dead (the point at which those assets are transferred) then they have no more use for those assets.
If there was anyone at the top of the list of people I'd want to pay for the measures which will increase social and economic mobility then it's rich dead people and alive poor people would be at the bottom of the list. Removing inheritance tax would tend to shift the burden of taxation from rich dead people to more alive, less rich people.
Last edited:
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
I suppose this is contributing to a derail, but I just can't get my head around the opposition to inheritance tax. It's a tax you never, ever have to pay, what could be better than that?
The only people who pay inheritance tax are those who've just come in for a gigantic windfall, sucks to be them I guess.
ETA, or what The Don said, should have pressed submit quicker.
Last edited:
You don't see that location is a legitimate element of price? The attribute "very rich" is a function of the amount of money a person can afford to spend, and nothing else.
And should "very rich" people, even those scraping by on assets of £325,000, not expect to pay some sort of taxation on them?
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
In a bizarre coincidence, I actually own both those places, but only need one, so I'm prepared to give one to you. Which one do you want?
No it isn't (readily convertible). Not unless you are prepared to live on the streets. I say a house is worth a house, unconnected with its monetary value. Sell it, and you need to buy another one, or rent. Rental values closely follow market values, and so your "very rich" guy living in the rougher areas of the south east still has no more available capital than the chap living in South Wales..
And you're welcome to think that someone who owns a run down mid terrace in a grotty area on a noisy main road, and who owns nothing else. is very rich. You might notice that this same person has probably paid twice as much in mortgage payments as his equivalent in Caerphilly over the lifetime of the mortgage because he has had to borrow twice as much.
That's a skewed question. It is skewed by the fact that it wouldn't be my sole asset, which I have specified in all my posts. It would be a bonus.
Thank you. You make my point for me. The person in the SE, scraping together enough to pay for a mortgage to buy a grotty mid-terrace in Walthamstow will not be able to afford to spend any more than his equivalent in South Wales (or Scotland, for that matter). The SE person is no better off in any meaningful way than someone in the equivalent house in South Wales, Cornwall, or on the Orkneys. Any difference in income will immediately be swallowed up by the much more expensive housing costs.
This all looks like rather ill-thought-through and unjustifiable jealousy to me.
If he has found it necessary to borrow. rich people often don't, but often do. If he has the credit rating to borrow such an amount, that tells us something too. If he leaves the house to his heirs and it is taxed on transfer, then your arguments are irrelevant anyway.
Taxing incomes, or profits or possessions by their value looks like jealousy? Whom then would you tax? Why, the poor of course! Nobody can be jealous of them, so taxing them doesn't imply the Mortal Sin of Envy; but daring to tax wealth is a Mortal Sin, eh?
Well the dead person has no more use for the property what with them being dead and all so if it's sold another does not need to be bought
If their net assets exceed £325k then they are rich (putting them in the top 3%).
Again, if not a rich dead person who do you tax ?
But this isn't a rich person, Craig, as I have repeatedly said. This is a below average working class Joe who is living at the very limit of his means in a grotty house in a run down area. Any definition of rich, in a UK context, which includes people like that, is fundamentally flawed.
Ridiculous straw man. You tax the rich, of course......but you tax them on their income. You don't tax the very bottom of the income-earning strata just because the house they can barely afford to live in happens to have a higher monetary value than someone living in identical circumstances 200 miles away.
And the guy who has worked all his life to afford that house loses the right to pass it on intact to his children, whereas the same guy, in the identical house, 200 miles away, can leave it to his kids untouched. Yeah, I get your idea of fairness now.......
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.,
I don't really see that the fact that houses are ridiculously expensive in London is in itself an argument against inheritance tax. It might be an argument against houses being so expensive in London, I suppose.