Money Mags
Registered User
- Messages
- 11
Unfortunately, the thinking behind this rise was to encourage spending rather than saving during the recession recently. The problem now is will the guv see that it should be lowered again to encourage saving - I'll let you field that one.I feel I took a fair tax hit on the money before it went into my account, the additional 41% hit on the tiny interest is a bit too much.
KlausFlouride.
Nope ; direct/indirect/stealth taxes are not per se {punitive} ,they may well be badly apportioned.
{public services do not match} ,not sure about that . methinks overall we are better than we think .
I do not think we are making ourselves {extremely uncompetitive} A. Unemployment now below EU average. B. We get a largish share of FDI (foreign direct investment.
Protocol.
Your parents do pay lowish taxes, these are the same parents that in 1970,s paid 67% income tax!
I must be turning pinkish !!!
yet again we seem to be rushing to raise rather than lower house prices.
Surely if prices are kept lower it means more crumbs for everyone?
Klaus,
I have the notion that the well off benefit inordinately from our taxation regime and that Mr Rich keeps adding to his wealth without the attendant effort !
...............................................................................
Just a thought ;
Housing is the one requirement we all have , yet again we seem to be rushing to raise rather than lower house prices.
Surely if prices are kept lower it means more crumbs for everyone? and Mr Normal has funds free after rent/mortgage, even for punitive taxes? or are punitive taxes a symptom of wrong side up tax system.?
( I ain,t tax knowledgeable so please treat my views solely as comments)
I don,t say there are hordes of rich people .
I am not into the simplistic tax like hell, but the system that in a recession favours the (rich) to get richer is badly flawed.
So Gerry are you suggesting that a "windfall" tax should be applied to all real estate based on an inherent general rise in the market value of these assets. CGT is applicable to that rise in value when the asset is sold/passed on. perhaps I am misunderstanding you but that appears to be your suggestion. I.e. Imposition of a requirement that all real assets owned are valued annually and that an actual tax payment is imposed on any rise in value from previous year. In many instances this would force the owner of an asset to sell it in order to pay the "implied" rather than realized increase in value!What I do say ,is that wealth in this recession has increased for a cohort of (rich) people/entities more by them holding assets rather than by work..
Surely a system allowing this is not fair?
I do not think we are far apart on our views and it irritates me that this ends up in a (tax the wealthy) rather than reform taxes to benefit those who make income from work rather than those who benefit from things like random house price increases?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?