THE CHANCELLOR was wrong to row back on plans to impose a ‘mansion tax' on expensive properties, according to our online audience.
Of the 123 polled, little more than a quarter – 28% – agreed with the move, amid concerns that asset-rich, cash-poor people could be caught by its introduction. The remaining 72% disagreed with abandoning the measure, noting its potential for tackling tax avoidance issues.
The ‘mansion tax' – originally proposed by Vince Cable – would have seen a rate of 1% or 2% of the property's value above a threshold of £1m to 2m, but both David Cameron and George Osborne ruled out its introduction.
In ruling out the tax at the Conservative party conference, Osborne said he was concerned the policy "will be sold to you as a mansion tax" before the election, and then afterwards, "a lot of the people in Britain are going to wake up and find their more modest homes have suddenly been reclassified as a mansion".
Vote in Accountancy Age's latest poll:
In a supposed free country the support for such a measure turns my stomach.
You work hard, and get taxed.
You then save and get taxed.
You buy a house with you reduced savings and get taxed.
You are then taxed just for living in the house.
And now because you worked hard and saved and bought a house with you already tax reduced saving, we are going to tax you.......
Ignore the last part for a second...I wonder how many people you helped employ by persevering through the first bunch of taxes.
Freedom is dead.
Posted by: Matt Quinn, 19 Oct 2012 | 13:58
What he did is to rob the poor give to rich.
This country has no hope!
Posted by: George, 20 Oct 2012 | 01:44
if its a mansion tax, the easiest way is to introduce a new council tax band
alternatively isnt it about time the state became transparent ?- note we are all being taxed at 70% or more.
so why not lump all our taxes - council, ni, inc tax, vat, road taxes, taxes on heating, insurance, taxes on living, etc into ONE single tax - then we will all see that for every pound we earn we lose 70p or more
Posted by: andrew, 22 Oct 2012 | 09:02
So 123 people voted by 89 to 34 to support a mansion tax. How many receive a copy of the Accountancy Age newsletter? I suspect the 89 supporters are a tiny proportion.
What this does show is the extent to which a desire to impose taxes on everything has infused a very small, but vocal, minority.
Posted by: Athelstane, 22 Oct 2012 | 09:10
A tax on houses worth more than £2 million is in fact a 'wealth tax' proposed by those with a envy at heart. They believe that those that have worked hard, employ people, pay taxes, take risks, have immagination and innovation, take zero out of the state so are a huge asset as opposed to a burden on it (whilst alongside this being fortunate enough to buy or build an expensive property) should be envied and forced to hand it over to those 'less wealthy'. How silly. Wealth / mansion taxes have been tried before and have failed before for the simple reason that they punish success - those who create wealth, whilst happy to pay their fair share, reach a point at which they would rather not work / work less / move country than keep handing over a seemingly never-ending amount in taxes. Where is the 'fairness' in that? Moreover all research and actual evidence shows that above a tipping point taxes face the law of limiting returns - the higher the taxes the less collected. Re-introducing wealth taxes into the UK would undoubtedly mean less tax collected. But the envious don't mind this, seemingly having an attitude of 'if I can't have it, neither should they'. Pathetic and a classic example of why this country is stuck in the mire of endless welfare and already high taxes whilst the Far East (albeit by no means a perfect model) is powering ahead. So, on the contrary, we desparately, desparately need wealth creators - they create wealth for EVERYONE. Wealth trickles down in the form of taxes, employment, the goods and services they buy. Once we start penalising and hounding wealth creators we are on a downward spiral as a country and the ironic thing is that it is the poorer section of society who will bear the brunt of all this envy. The wealth and all it brings with it will have gone.
Posted by: H Marriott, 22 Oct 2012 | 09:11
Matt Quinn: I think you're missing the point about this "mansion tax". This is a totally avoidable tax. DON'T BUY A MANSION.
The Coalition is making a mistake by not pursuing the mansion tax policy. The country has a high level of debt which needs to be reduced and additional taxes are required to achieve this objective. More importantly, it is time that the British are discouraged from spending vast amounts of money on housing so that this wealth is used to produce real wealth by lending to or investing in companies and creating jobs. This as a missed opportunity to re-shape the economy Mr Osborne. Where will you make up for this shortfall in tax revenue Mr Osborne? Will you batter the elderly and hard-working people in Britain even harder in the coming years as a result?
Posted by: Richard Vaz, 22 Oct 2012 | 11:40
On the contrary, with respet, I think you are missing the point a) quite, people from now on will indeed be put off buying a mansion - but I'm not sure how that helps matters or indeed the upkeep of large houses - part of our heritage in this country - or indeed the employees who work in these house and you have failed to take into account houses which are ALREADY owned by people who are effectively facing a retrospective tax if these measures ever come in, many of whom are asset riich but cash poor and b) just becase we need to raise money as a country not not de facto mean a mansion tax is either sensible or indeed fair. One could argue (albeit it woukld be un-pc to say so) cutting our bloated and unsustainable welfare by a proper amount would sort out the defiicit immediately. A mansion tax does not do this, it merely bashes the very people on the head who we are going to have to rely on to keep paying the bills - remember the top 1% of tax paryers already pay 27% of the total tax take and the top 5% pay 50% - or so I am told. But whatever the figure, it is vastly disproportionate and frankly the better off are already paying their fair share- the golden goose springs to mind. A few stories in the press about tax evasion does not necessarily mean no one should be allowed to have a valuable house anymore. History shows that the politics of envy are not a good road to go down, just becase the going is tough.
Posted by: H marriott, 22 Oct 2012 | 13:31
You clearly have a 0.000000001% understanding of finance or economics even, so please re-educate before you address me again.
Okay so a lot of you want people to stop buying mansions. Fair play...
Instead of buying mansions, they could put their money away? How many employed people will this one effect?
Plant and Materials manufacturers
People who manufacture all things required to fill a big house (i.e. furniture, tiles, carpets)
Great idea Richie...Keep 'em coming
Posted by: Matt Quinn, 22 Oct 2012 | 21:23
You may also like
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.