Tubbs Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 . Is it?Yes the bottom tranche were not liable to stamp duty or either of the plans for the L B T T. So absolutely no benefit to the lower end of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 .Yes the bottom tranche were not liable to stamp duty or either of the plans for the L B T T. So absolutely no benefit to the lower end of the market. Are you suggesting that it should be applied to houses under the current level? What level do you want to set it at? £5K, £15K, £50K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Usual distraction stuff from those ignorant of the basics to those desperate to invent stuff. Anything but face up to yet another give away that does nothing for the poor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Are you suggesting that it should be applied to houses under the current level? What level do you want to set it at? £5K, £15K, £50K Usual distraction stuff from those ignorant of the basics to those desperate to invent stuff. Anything but face up to yet another give away that does nothing for the poor Only one person trying to distract from your concern trolling. How about you tell us where the threshold should be set to help the poorest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Oh and when the distraction stuff is done lets bring out the 'trolling' rubbish; anything apart from dealing head on with the issue. Circa £64m per year distributed to those who can afford to buy a house over £130k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Oh and when the distraction stuff is done lets bring out the 'trolling' rubbish; anything apart from dealing head on with the issue. Circa £64m per year distributed to those who can afford to buy a house over £130k. Or in your case, ignore the question asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Q_ How about you tell us where the threshold should be set to help the poorest? A - A threshold change for a property purchase related tax, wont do anything to help the poorest - as the poorest won't be purchasing property But I think/hope you knew that ? The decision taken by the SG to make the LBTT revenue neutral means they decided not to 're-distribute' any money at all to the poor from this tax. They could have decided to tax the richest more and allocate any 'profit' to their alleged priority of the gap between rich and poor. Instead they proposed to tax the rich more and gave it to people buying houses between circa £125 k - £330k. They told people this was fair. They then got a 'bonus' £64m and for a second time decided not to use it to pay for anything to do with their alleged priority - they stuck with their principles and gave it to people buying property over £130k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Q_ How about you tell us where the threshold should be set to help the poorest? A - A threshold change for a property purchase related tax, wont do anything to help the poorest - as the poorest won't be purchasing property But I think/hope you knew that ? The decision taken by the SG to make the LBTT revenue neutral means they decided not to 're-distribute' any money at all to the poor from this tax. They could have decided to tax the richest more and allocate any 'profit' to their alleged priority of the gap between rich and poor. Instead they proposed to tax the rich more and gave it to people buying houses between circa £125 k - £330k. They told people this was fair. They then got a 'bonus' £64m and for a second time decided not to use it to pay for anything to do with their alleged priority - they stuck with their principles and gave it to people buying property over £130k. Talk about mis-understanding taxes. Revenue-neutral does not mean no revenue. I am sure that revenue from this tax is spent on the priorities of the SG. Now perhaps you could answer the question, where would YOU have set the thresholds? Remember you are not restricted by the policies of the SG. You also have a strange sense of taxation. Reducing taxation is not giving people anything, only taking less. So this £64m is not being given to house purchasers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Nobody getting a cheque in the post ! Well that is ok then. By the logic on here the top rate of tax could be cut and since no actual cash would be physically given to the rich it would not be a give away by their definition . And if say the tax on the lower bands was increased to make up the deficit it could be said that it was revenue neutral and in line with SNP principles . 'Remember reducing taxation is not giving people anything only taking less' - wow what next 'fire' the 'wheel'? So if my tax rate was cut to zero I wouldn't be getting anything; perhaps technically but it would sure as hell feel like someone had just given me thousands of pounds in the real world. So this allegedly left wing government is taking money 'from richer people' and they are choosing to give it to 'the lower end of the market' and choosing not to tackle poverty further. Simple really. As for the tax bands 'question' I don't intend to undertake many thousands of hours in analysing tax incomes and property transactions right across the country in order to build a sustainable model to answer your question; you know one that would last perhaps longer than 3 months . My simple point is that in the first place I would have liked to see it run at a 'profit' to further support the SGs 'fight' on inequality. When a further circa £64m came into the equation I would have thought the bands could have stayed the same and the £64m re-distributed to the poor and not given to folk buying houses over £130k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Talk about mis-understanding taxes. You could perhaps specifically tell me which part of this paragraph illustrates this misunderstanding - what part of this is wrong? 'The decision taken by the SG to make the LBTT revenue neutral means they decided not to 're-distribute' any money at all to the poor from this tax. They could have decided to tax the richest more and allocate any 'profit' to their alleged priority of the gap between rich and poor. Instead they proposed to tax the rich more and gave it to people buying houses between circa £125 k - £330k. They told people this was fair. They then got a 'bonus' £64m and for a second time decided not to use it to pay for anything to do with their alleged priority - they stuck with their principles and gave it to people buying property over £130k.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Wow! Really? I fall into that category. When can I expect my cheque through the post? I wonder how long the cash will take to clear. Congratulations on your windfall - do you feel you should be priority for the SG; that your tax reduction is the best use of resources at this time, in the current economic climate? Or could you have coped with either the Stamp Duty or your original LBTT liability and the funds could have been used elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 You could perhaps specifically tell me which part of this paragraph illustrates this misunderstanding - what part of this is wrong? 'The decision taken by the SG to make the LBTT revenue neutral means they decided not to 're-distribute' any money at all to the poor from this tax. They could have decided to tax the richest more and allocate any 'profit' to their alleged priority of the gap between rich and poor. Instead they proposed to tax the rich more and gave it to people buying houses between circa £125 k - £330k. They told people this was fair. They then got a 'bonus' £64m and for a second time decided not to use it to pay for anything to do with their alleged priority - they stuck with their principles and gave it to people buying property over £130k.' tax income =! profit in any sense of the word. That paragraph has nothing to do with understanding tax or otherwise. It is another of your posts whereby the non-application of tax revenue to the poorest is given greater significance than the implementation of a progressive taxation policy. BTW. I would consider someone that is stretching their budget to purchase a house at £100k as considerably poorer than someone that can afford a house at £1m or even £1/2m. Maybe if you could provide an alternative banding with the cost/benefit analysis, housing market impact and where the increased revenue would be spent, you would have a little more credibility. But no, once again you state what the Scottish Government is not doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 tax income =! profit in any sense of the word. That paragraph has nothing to do with understanding tax or otherwise. It is another of your posts whereby the non-application of tax revenue to the poorest is given greater significance than the implementation of a progressive taxation policy. BTW. I would consider someone that is stretching their budget to purchase a house at £100k as considerably poorer than someone that can afford a house at £1m or even £1/2m. Maybe if you could provide an alternative banding with the cost/benefit analysis, housing market impact and where the increased revenue would be spent, you would have a little more credibility. But no, once again you state what the Scottish Government is not doing. Thanks for confirming that you can't actually highlight any specific point that was wrong. I have never denied it was progressive, do you deny that the SG could have made the LBTT to generate FURTHER taxation income? And that after setting up their original bands, they could have stuck with these well researched bands (presumably) and utilised the consequence of the stamp duty changes at UK level for other priorities? Where the increased income would be spent? On any gap introduced by austerity that the SG keep going on about. Health and education were highlighted as priorities by the FM recently. Protecting school budgets perhaps. Just to be clear, me saying the SG is not taking a chance to allocate further funds is not the same as saying they are not allocating any funds to their priorities. But we all know that really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 The rich are now paying about 12% (up from 7%) property tax and the poorest either 0% or just 2% in comparison. Only in Tubbyland could this be seen as the poor being clobbered and the rich being rewarded. So people buying houses over £130 k are now the poorest? :lol: That is up there with your jotters and pencils jibe in response to school budget cuts. So out of touch its frightening. Or perhaps just blinded by personal gain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 You missed a whole tranche of people that I mentioned who will pay 0%. And who paid 0% before any of the changes. 'the poorest either 0% or just 2% in comparison' Is what you said; thereby in your world some of the 'poorest' pay 2% on their property of over £145k . Please keep digging this is entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Eh? They did exactly that. Those people will now pay 12% instead of 7%. In Tubbyland this is NOT seen as an increase in taxation? Interesting. I can't be bothered to look for where you took that quote out of context from; and thereby totally changed the point I was making. Smacks of the same absolute desperation as the fictitious posting manufactured by strichener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 You are accusing the SG of hammering the poor and handing the rich a large shiny cheque with their stamp duty replacement. The HMRC website (Google really is your friend) suggests that in fact the biggest houses now attract 12% tax instead of 7% tax. That is the context. I'm not sure what other context you are talking about. Only in Tubbyland could that possibly be seen as a desperate argument on my part. There are two numbers. One number used to be small and now its larger. It's pretty hard to spin it as a win for rich people but you've given it a very good go. I can imagine the conversation:- "Hello Rich Timothy, I'm Tubbs of Tubbyland. Your house has just sold for £2 million. I'm here to collect the tax. You used to pay 7% and now it's 12%. Congratulations on your windfall you b*****d - the poor are suffering because of this". I see you didn't even seek to defend your out of context quoting of my point. Let me repeat for a third time what my point is; your buddy can't identify any point that is wrong but I am looking forward to your effort: 'The decision taken by the SG to make the LBTT revenue neutral means they decided not to 're-distribute' any money at all to the poor from this tax. They could have decided to tax the richest more and allocate any 'profit' to their alleged priority of the gap between rich and poor. Instead they proposed to tax the rich more and gave it to people buying houses between circa £125 k - £330k. They told people this was fair. They then got a 'bonus' £64m and for a second time decided not to use it to pay for anything to do with their alleged priority - they stuck with their principles and gave it to people buying property over £130k.' You will see that I have always noted that this takes from the rich - that I didn't is a total creation of your imagination - perhaps fuelled by an over reliance on an internet search engine in preference to logical thinking. Having looked at it again I see that paragraph has the partial sentence that you quoted out of context; I have highlighted it to show what a devious ploy you utilised there, desperate and pathetic stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 So it's not enough that they took a regressive tax and made it progressive. It's not enough that they hugely increased the tax on rich people selling their mansions. You are unhappy because they didn't completely screw those rich people to the ground? BTW people in the £250k to £325k are going to be paying 5%. It used to be 3%. In my world that is also an increase. You can't even get that part right. The only housing to see a cut will be the very cheapest houses which still attract the tax and that cut has been made possible by redistributing the tax burden slightly onto the richest - the very definition of progressive and you are STILL not happy. Poor Tubbs. So you are also unable to pinpoint any inaccuracy in my point, interesting. Not one. No recognition that you deliberately misquoted me; I have always pointed out that this tax will take from the rich; the key point is that it is not then given to the poor. The £250k - £325k bracket have not seen an increase in their tax; I can absolutely get that right, more lies and inaccuracies and you really are all over the place here. How are the poorest getting on with their £145k houses in your world ? Your point that only the cheapest houses liable have seen a cut is lies, those up to £330k benefit. Your previous effort has also said that a tax burden has been taken from most of the small and medium house sales under £145k which the bottom tranche of house owners would be buying or selling, allegedly . Funny how in your latest effort there has only been a 'slight' re-distribution onto the richest when previously you were trumpeting the rise from 7 to 12 % - which in most people's mind is not really slight. Take the hint here, you are lying and misquoting for a reason; that this tax does nothing to help the poor, by absolute design of an allegedly left wing administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Tubbs It would help if you actually had a point. The idea that the "rich" are not paying 100% tax on above average wages is not really a point. Just to correct yiu on an earlirt post, I did actually point out what was wrong with the statement. You just chose to ignore it a rumble along with your f**k the rich give everything to the poor rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Tubbs It would help if you actually had a point. The idea that the "rich" are not paying 100% tax on above average wages is not really a point. Just to correct yiu on an earlirt post, I did actually point out what was wrong with the statement. You just chose to ignore it a rumble along with your f**k the rich give everything to the poor rubbish. 100% tax on the rich? Where did you bring that from - you are verging into Softoak territory there! However, the next time someone criticises welfare changes I look forward to you pointing out to them that they cannot do so without first compiling an entire welfare system as an alternative. Last week the SG had £64m more than they bargained for and have decided to use 0% of it on the poor and 100% of it on people who are buying property over £135k; that is my point . I would ask if you agree or disagree with that simple statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.