Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

A whip is far more better than systems across the rest of the world. Tribalism, or Lobbying (usually cash incentives) are worse ways.

It might be a tad childish, but it's not a bad system, and it really tests the resolve of the MP and his/her principles.

It is interesting how many rebellions there have been so far; it could be to do with the "free-er" or "A-list" MP selection pre-2010 by the Conservatives, in combination with coalition (non right, non left) policies.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Would you be happy if you voted for, say, a Tory candidate who then voted like a Marxist in parliament? By and large people want their MP to vote with the party as they generally vote for the party they want, not the person.
Click to expand...

Ideally I'd want my MP to vote the way he wanted and thought was right of his own accord, rather than what someone else told him to. Providing he didn't run on a completely disingenuous platform, that shouldn't really be too hard.

Would you want your MP to vote as he was told if the PM suddenly started embarking on the final solution?
 
Mockney said:
Ideally I'd want my MP to vote the way he wanted and thought was right of his own accord, rather than what someone else told him to. Providing he didn't run on a completely disingenuous platform, that shouldn't really be too hard.
Click to expand...

You have to give Zac Goldsmith credit on that. Granted he's already a gazzilionaire, but he's definitely a man of principle when it comes to green issues and what he was elected to do regarding third runway.

Another is Tracey Crouch, admirable woman.
 
Mockney said:
Ideally I'd want my MP to vote the way he wanted and thought was right of his own accord, rather than what someone else told him to. Providing he didn't run on a completely disingenuous platform, that shouldn't really be too hard.

Would you want your MP to vote as he was told if the PM suddenly started embarking on the final solution?
Click to expand...

In general though I guess they run on the party's platform and manifesto, so being whipped into following it shouldn't be a problem. Obviously that muddies a lot when an issue either goes against the manifesto or is a new issue - e.g. tuition fees, the wars.

Can get ridiculous and turn people into zombies though, remember the guy in Australia who was asked what he thought about an issue, and just replied "whatever the PM thinks, I agree with that" :lol:
 
Despite having lost some of his political force since being a part of the government, Vince Cable still manages to make Ed Balls appear small-time.
 
Is the mansion tax anything more than a bone Clegg can throw to the Lib Dem rank and file?
 
Plechazunga said:
No, a tax on the rich. If the rich all decided to build castles in Aberystwyth, it would be silly to call taxing the castles 'a tax on Aberystwyth'.
Click to expand...

It's a tax on London because wealthy people in Manchester don't spend as much on property.

Clegg appears to have no idea what a mansion actually is. In London, it's a very nice house in a low-crime area, whereas in Manchester it's about 10 acres worth of land.

It also happens to be an incredibly spiteful and pointless tax. Why should people be taxed because they have a nice house?
 
alastair said:
It's a tax on London because wealthy people in Manchester don't spend as much on property.

Clegg appears to have no idea what a mansion actually is. In London, it's a very nice house in a low-crime area, whereas in Manchester it's about 10 acres worth of land.

It also happens to be an incredibly spiteful and pointless tax. Why should people be taxed because they have a nice house?
Click to expand...

There are advantages to a tax on high-value properties/land. Firstly, it's harder to avoid the tax as it's not so easy to off-shore a mansion. Secondly, it's a way of taxing foreign people who spend time in Britain but otherwise avoid our tax regime. Thirdly, it can help to level out the imbalances in the property market.

There are disadvantages in that in can be awkward to administer and you have to consider what to do with people who are asset-rich but cash-poor.

Is it anymore of a tax on London than the 50% top rate of tax was? The people paying the top rate of income tax are largely in London and the South-East. Inevitably, taxes are going to be focused on where the money is.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
There are advantages to a tax on high-value properties/land. Firstly, it's harder to avoid the tax as it's not so easy to off-shore a mansion. Secondly, it's a way of taxing foreign people who spend time in Britain but otherwise avoid our tax regime. Thirdly, it can help to level out the imbalances in the property market.

Is it anymore of a tax on London than the 50% top rate of tax was? The people paying the top rate of income tax are largely in London and the South-East.
Click to expand...

I haven't really got an issue with income tax as long as it's kept reasonable. It's not a tax out of spite.

I appreciate the advantages of it, but it simply isn't fair. The issue of foreigners not paying enough tax is not a big enough one to justify the tax.

That said, it could just about be OK if it was for houses of £20m or above, and didn't just affect people who have spent their life savings on a nice house. £2m doesn't buy a 'mansion' these days.
 
alastair said:
I haven't really got an issue with income tax as long as it's kept reasonable. It's not a tax out of spite.

I appreciate the advantages of it, but it simply isn't fair. The issue of foreigners not paying enough tax is not a big enough one to justify the tax.

That said, it could just about be OK if it was for houses of £20m or above, and didn't just affect people who have spent their life savings on a nice house. £2m doesn't buy a 'mansion' these days.
Click to expand...

The word 'mansion' is just the headline. The idea is to use property merely as a way of identifying the wealthy to be taxed. Unsurprisingly, there is a strong correlation between people's overall wealth and the value of the property they own. Not sure why you think it's out of spite?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
The word 'mansion' is just the headline. The idea is to use property merely as a way of identifying the wealthy to be taxed. Unsurprisingly, there is a strong correlation between people's overall wealth and the value of the property they own. Not sure why you think it's out of spite?
Click to expand...

Because the wealthy are taxed already. Council tax is sufficient for this.

Also, the amount of people who have bought houses ages ago that are now worth £2m or more is huge. House prices have rocketed.

As an example of this, check out the story about Crimewatch presenter Nick Ross. He bought a house in the early 90's for £950,000 and he sold it the other week for £34m.
 
alastair said:
Because the wealthy are taxed already. Council tax is sufficient for this.
Click to expand...

Think of this as a new top-bracket of Council Tax if you want.

alastair said:
Also, the amount of people who have bought houses ages ago that are now worth £2m or more is huge. House prices have rocketed.
Click to expand...

As I said, you have to work out what you do with people who are asset-rich but cash-poor. Though there aren't many people living in big houses with little other wealth, mostly because those people sell up to release the capital.

alastair said:
As an example of this, check out the story about Crimewatch presenter Nick Ross. He bought a house in the early 90's for £950,000 and he sold it the other week for £34m.
Click to expand...

And in our current flawed system of capital gains exemptions, he will have paid absolutely no tax on a profit of £33m.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
As I said, you have to work out what you do with people who are asset-rich but cash-poor. Though there aren't many people living in big houses with little other wealth, mostly because those people sell up to release the capital.

And in our current flawed system of capital gains exemptions, he will have paid absolutely nothing in tax on a profit of £33m.
Click to expand...

Why should he pay tax because he bought a house which is now worth more than what it was? How is that fair? He took the plunge and invested in a property at the lowest ebb of the housing market, and it paid off.

A lot of people live in expensive houses with only semi-wealth. I think you under-estimate the amount of middle-class people who purchased houses in south-west London 10 years ago for 300,000 who are now sitting in £2m properties.
 
alastair said:
Why should he pay tax because he bought a house which is now worth more than what it was? How is that fair? He took the plunge and invested in a property at the lowest ebb of the housing market, and it paid off.

A lot of people live in expensive houses with only semi-wealth. I think you under-estimate the amount of middle-class people who purchased houses in south-west London 10 years ago for 300,000 who are now sitting in £2m properties.
Click to expand...

I consider it fair to tax any capital gains or income, regardless of source. The absence of capital gains on 'first homes' is also one of the primary reasons behind the speculation that inflated the property market. Do you think it's fair that people have to pay capital gains tax when they sell their second or third homes?

***

To change the topic slightly... let's work on the assumption that we want to raise more tax revenue from the rich (I know you might not agree with this, but go with it for now), how would you go about it? What's the best way to do it?

Would you look to tax income more heavily by bumping up the top rate of income tax or implementing big bonus taxes? Or would you look to tax wealth more heavily by increasing capital gains taxes or through land/wealth taxes? Or maybe you would want to heavily tax luxury goods?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I consider it fair to tax any capital gains or income, regardless of source. The absence of capital gains on 'first homes' is also one of the primary reasons behind the speculation that inflated the property market. Do you think it's fair that people have to pay capital gains tax when they sell their second or third homes?

***

To change the topic slightly... let's work on the assumption that we want to raise more tax revenue from the rich (I know you might not agree with this, but go with it for now), how would you go about it? What's the best way to do it?

Would you look to tax income more heavily by bumping up the top rate of income tax or implementing big bonus taxes? Or would you look to tax wealth more heavily by increasing capital gains taxes or through land/wealth taxes? Or maybe you would want to heavily tax luxury goods?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to extort tax out of people for no real justifiable reason. I can just about accept it if we're talking 2-3 properties, but not one.

I'd attempt to raise inheritance tax until we reached the point where people would just avoid it by passing down money before death. I'd go down the high tax on ludicrously luxury goods route. Although as ever, we'd have a problem determining what a luxury good really entails.
 
alastair said:
I don't think it's fair to extort tax out of people for no real justifiable reason. I can just about accept it if we're talking 2-3 properties, but not one.
Click to expand...

'Extort' is unnecessarily emotive language. A 'mansion tax' is just an extension of the council tax principle, and taxing capital gains is the only way to temper the headlong rush to a completely stratified society.

One of my uncles runs his own construction business. This is how it works... he builds a house, lives in it for a year so it counts as his 'first home' and then sells it, paying no tax. Then he builds another house, lives in it for a year, sells it, pays no tax... He's done it about 9 times now, made a nice little fortune and has paid no tax. None at all.

alastair said:
I'd attempt to raise inheritance tax until we reached the point where people would just avoid it by passing down money before death. I'd go down the high tax on ludicrously luxury goods route. Although as ever, we'd have a problem determining what a luxury good really entails.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on raising inheritance tax. Not such a fan of consumption taxes though.
 
The original proposal was to target homes with a value £1m as i recall [or was it even lower?]. Then Clegg moved on to the Tycoon Tax for about a week.
 
alastair said:
A house valued at £2m or more, which is very unfair if you've bought a house in Notting Hill in the seventies which is now worth £10m.
Click to expand...

If you bought a house in Notting Hill for a couple of hundred grand and it's now worth ten million, you've had an absolute windfall for no reason other than the vagaries of the property market and the gentrification of central London. I think it's even more reasonable to tax that than to tax someone's ten million in earned income.

MikeUpNorth said:
A 'mansion tax' is just an extension of the council tax principle, and taxing capital gains is the only way to temper the headlong rush to a completely stratified society.
Click to expand...

Precisely. We've tried feudalism in this country, it was fairly shit. Even as a baron you were as likely as not to end up bummed to death with a red-hot poker by your own brother.

Having said that, there may be good reasons for not taxing investments/capital gains too highly.
 
alastair said:
It's a tax on London because wealthy people in Manchester don't spend as much on property.

Clegg appears to have no idea what a mansion actually is. In London, it's a very nice house in a low-crime area, whereas in Manchester it's about 10 acres worth of land.

It also happens to be an incredibly spiteful and pointless tax. Why should people be taxed because they have a nice house?
Click to expand...

You really do embody all the traits i despise about the so-called better off.

You happily find ways to justify cuts to society's most vulnerable, but god forbid the axe of fairness should fall on your family's shire.

Nothing personal, but you're a nimby Tory. Once anything recession wise touches your own privileged background the toys come out of the pram.

You're everything i hate about humanity. Selfish. I'M ALRIGHT JACK.
 
bsc said:
You really do embody all the traits i despise about the so-called better off.

You happily find ways to justify cuts to society's most vulnerable, but god forbid the axe of fairness should fall on your family's shire.

Nothing personal, but you're a nimby Tory. Once anything recession wise touches your own privileged background the toys come out of the pram.

You're everything i hate about humanity. Selfish. I'M ALRIGHT JACK.
Click to expand...

:lol: Yeah, nothing personal about that... you're only everything I hate about humanity. Nothing personal.
 
And for the record, this isn't the latest buzzword - politics of envy.

My family are more that well off. I have a job i worked hard to get.

I believe in a welfare state, a free health service for our weak and most vulnerable and a fairer distribution of our wealth.

Your family will continue to keep up with the Jones' and forget the people who helped them on the way up.

Awful people.
 
Plechazunga said:
Having said that, there may be good reasons for not taxing investments/capital gains too highly.
Click to expand...

Not sure I buy that all investments are a form of savings. Some are, but I'm not sure you can class buying a house, or shares, and seeing a return of many times your original investment as 'savings'. That's not looking to save your money to spend at a later date, that's looking to make more money.

You could get fancy I guess and have the capital gains threshold start at above the value of what would have been earned at the base rate for any given investment. Needlessly complicated though.
 
How about an additional tax for other wealth indicators while we are at it? Cars, holidays, clothes, electronics e.t.c.

But if we want to have taxes rooted in morality i think we can do much better than this contrived mansion tax. DfID and DEFRA could both do well out of such a policy, each explaining on the respective receipt or invoice where the added charge is being directed.
 
alastair said:
A house valued at £2m or more, which is very unfair if you've bought a house in Notting Hill in the seventies which is now worth £10m.
Click to expand...

Thats unearned wealth, the work of everyone else has put the value of that house up, not you, it should be taxed
 
Totally disagree with a wealth tax.

It's only going to get gamed.... shared ownership, splitting assets, usual stuff. I don't see the problem with the current tax system.

Thats unearned wealth, the work of everyone else has put the value of that house up, not you, it should be taxed
Click to expand...

The mind boggles. How is it unearned? Houses were pretty expensive in Notting Hill even in the 70's relative to the rest of the nation, they've saved/mortgaged and paid their premium, and their good decision making means they should get those houses. Oh, and btw, they are probably paying enormous council tax (right now), followed by huge stamp duty if they sold.
 
Jaz said:
The mind boggles. How is it unearned? Houses were pretty expensive in Notting Hill even in the 70's relative to the rest of the nation, they've saved/mortgaged and paid their premium, and their good decision making means they should get those houses. Oh, and btw, they are probably paying enormous council tax (right now), followed by huge stamp duty if they sold.
Click to expand...

Those houses have gained value through no action of their owners, unearend wealth
 
Jaz said:
It's only going to get gamed.... shared ownership, splitting assets, usual stuff. I don't see the problem with the current tax system.
Click to expand...

Income tax gets gamed, why don't you call for that to be abolished

The point of a mansion tax is its hard to game, the tax is on the property, hard to split that
 
“Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all while the landlord sits still…To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.” - That well known lefty Churchill
 
Mozza said:
Those houses have gained value through no action of their owners, unearend wealth
Click to expand...

Have you never made improvements to your home or just kept up reasonable standards of maintenance?

As for unearned, should we be taxing the gifts and presents of people with more vigour? :smirk:
 
Jaz said:
Totally disagree with a wealth tax.

It's only going to get gamed.... shared ownership, splitting assets, usual stuff. I don't see the problem with the current tax system.



The mind boggles. How is it unearned? Houses were pretty expensive in Notting Hill even in the 70's relative to the rest of the nation, they've saved/mortgaged and paid their premium, and their good decision making means they should get those houses. Oh, and btw, they are probably paying enormous council tax (right now), followed by huge stamp duty if they sold.
Click to expand...

Values have risen disproportionately due to factors over which they had little influence. Pretty open and shut case of unearned.
 
bsc said:
You really do embody all the traits i despise about the so-called better off.

You happily find ways to justify cuts to society's most vulnerable, but god forbid the axe of fairness should fall on your family's shire.

Nothing personal, but you're a nimby Tory. Once anything recession wise touches your own privileged background the toys come out of the pram.

You're everything i hate about humanity. Selfish. I'M ALRIGHT JACK.
Click to expand...

I have literally never encountered anyone so self-righteous in my entire life.

This is a quite disgraceful post which makes comments you know to be false but you say it anyway to try and in some way besmirch my e-name.

I do not happily justify any cuts to society's most vulnerable members - it's unfortunate cuts need to be made at all, and I feel everyone should experience them as equally as possible. You know I've never insinuated otherwise, but you ignore reasonable posts to fit your incredibly offensive and dramatic agenda.

You have a serious inferiority complex. You seem to have this belief that anyone who votes Conservative is an evil person who doesn't care about the poor or the generally vulnerable. This is a complete myth. Indeed, this applies to some people in life, but it doesn't tend to be based around political persuasion. It tends to boil down to whether you have a good heart and moral compass.

I just can't even believe you have the temerity to write a post like that in genuine seriousness. You really believe you're better than other people because you're very left-wing, and you equate your political stance with morality.

Not every Conservative lives in a shire. Not every Conservative has been to private school. Many of them help the people who helped them up too. It is complete delusion to suggest otherwise.

The great irony here is that you are the person discriminating against others. My background over which I had no say is the principal factor for which you wrote your astonishing post. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who it is against, rich or poor. I suggest you consider a little more before posting in future.
 
You're mostly right there Alastair, but then again if you do go on about having been to private school in every other post you are likely to get a response. You do seem a bit class-obsessed to be honest.
 
711 said:
You're mostly right there Alastair, but then again if you do go on about having been to private school in every other post you are likely to get a response. You do seem a bit class-obsessed to be honest.
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned it a lot in one particular thread because I had the controversial opinion which a lot of people picked me up on. I've tried to avoid it since, but point taken.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Have you never made improvements to your home or just kept up reasonable standards of maintenance?

As for unearned, should we be taxing the gifts and presents of people with more vigour? :smirk:
Click to expand...

Depending on location doing feck all would turn you into a millionaire if you had the right bit of land, no maintenance required

Gifts of an unreasonable level are taxed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.