I read it and it’s a non starter really surely.
i can understand the theory, but it’s completely impractical.
It’s a good and tough thought experiment to think of how actually to best bring in extra revenue to pay for all the COVID payouts. No easy answers..
I’m glad we’ve got you guys here to set right the leading world experts on tax policy.
I agree. I think we all know something has to be done.
sorry. Didn’t realise you were not able to post unless you were Adam Smith?
The massive report that was commissioned and put together by experts saying it’s the best option, rather than passively dismissing it as “completely impractical” based on nothing.
it’s a football forum. Do we really all have to go to the trouble of reading a ‘massive’ report? Or can we have a discussion
To be completely honest I didn’t even read it
What does it matter that we’re on a football forum? I’ve been having a discussion already, you were the one who dismissed it out of hand with no kind of reasoning.
Any wealth tax should not include the value of the home you live in. It should also only apply to assets over £1 million in value.
Institutions and the people running them having zero incentive to run things efficiently and in many instances being rewarded with higher budgets when running them poorly when standards drop means inefficiency is an inevitability. Its less gross incompetence and more the unavoidable net result of monopolising any industry.
I don’t have the time or the inclination to have an in depth conversation or go into an analysis of it - but I’m still allowed an opinion, as is anyone, no matter what their experience, knowledge or expertise.
A minute ago you wanted a discussion rather than referring to the commission report, but now you have neither the time nor inclination to get into conversation on it?
experience and knowledge. Neither of which I need to justify on an anonymous forum.
Wealth taxes are pretty common around the world. As are property taxes, and they normally take the value of the property into account.
Since you bring it up yourself: I think the point here is that @Rado_N is trying to have a discussion and you're not. You're rather defending your right to shout something without having to back it up in any kind of way (well, maybe an Argument from Authority). And while you can indeed do that if you want, that's not the discussion you're asking for yourself in this quote.
Yea for sure, valuation isn’t overly complicated.
He’s mugged you right off
an estate agent is not qualified to appraise a property. next you will be suggesting we go off of the values on Zoopla
That seems like a generic pro-capitalism argument though: governments are inherently inefficient, governments can't pick winners, and so on. That holds no water though. For one, the US is one of the most privatized countries in the world and is particularly big on wasting money. Also, job protection in the public sector has more behind it than the bottom line; Canada also protected all of its public servants, and that's not because of inefficiencies. So what you're saying here doesn't really answer anything for me.
Probably not interesting for anyone, but here is a calculator for Norwegian homes' tax value. It uses a model from Statistics Norway, and you just fill in the address, square meters, age and type of residency (detatched house, apartment, etc) to get the result. Then, if you think it's wrong, you send in documentation in the vein of those I described earlier.
So if my mate blows all his money on expensive holidays and frivolous shit, whereas I am sensible enough to save up to get a house and pay off the mortgage, I deserve to be penalised for that decision?
To be fair, he’ll have paid 20% VAT on a lot of that frivolous consumption.
It would be hard to administer in the UK. Where my mum lives the houses are very samey, but in parts of London you have former social housing blocks cheek by jowl with nice detached period properties and so on. The street behind ours is massively more expensive etc....
It's not ethical to retrospectively tax someone for a third time on a property and then they'll have another go with IHT.
The solution most economists seem to suggest to this problem is a Land Value Tax, where the tax is levied on the unimproved value of the underlying land, disregarding any property built on it.
Presumably if you were going to announce a one-off wealth tax you would have the reference date be the same as or right after the announcement date, making attempts to avoid it impractical.
I'm not going to pretend to know anything about London, that would be a task for some UK economists. But generally the "housing block vs detatched" should at least capture a lot of that, no? The biggest Norwegian cities have absolutely nothing on London, of course, but there's quite a lot of variance in housing here as well and by blindly checking some close areas I know something about it seems to measure up quite well.
That's still a very blunt tool, given what's built on the land is more important.
I dunno, I was wondering if they'd just use postcodes, which basically relate to individual streets. The streets, even if small, can have houses from multiple eras though, so doing it accurately would be very labour intensive if is to be fair.
Taxes are not a punishment. They’re the price we pay for a functioning society. It’s about finding the fairest way overall.
This.
Yea, it would also “catch” people who leave the country, or potentially even people who left recently before it even gets announced.
