Changes in taxation that Andy Burnham seems to be interested in

MaizieD

^The value of land has nothing to do with the rich, they are getting richer, they are accumulating wealth because you and I are buying what they sell, houses, cars, computers, phones, you name it.^

Not necessarily, David. Not all wealthy people are business owners. There is inherited wealth which can accrue very fast without the wealth 'owner' lifting a finger.

Correct quite a lot of property is owned personally which will yield some revenue, but that is not going to stop billionaires hovering up the large scale wealth. There are always going to be countries like Ireland offering lower taxes to businesses.

MIRAS.
Mortgage Interest Relief At Source was abolished in 2000 by Gordon Brown.

Don't know what this stuff about Burnham is supposed to about?

The value of land has nothing to do with the rich, they are getting richer, they are accumulating wealth because you and I are buying what they sell, houses, cars, computers, phones, you name it.

Not necessarily, David. Not all wealthy people are business owners. There is inherited wealth which can accrue very fast without the wealth 'owner' lifting a finger.

twaddle

Sorry, DAR, but I really find it tiresome when people drop unsubstantiated claims into random conversations.

I'm with you on this. People love a headline grab, they don't like looking at any evidence that may or may not be there.

There is already 2 land value taxes IHT on death and and CGT when it is sold, for the unlucky both.

The value of land has nothing to do with the rich, they are getting richer, they are accumulating wealth because you and I are buying what they sell, houses, cars, computers, phones, you name it. Much of the CGT is collected on land that is developed, developers, are taking a risk, they need a certain return or profit or they won't take the risk, increased taxation will only increase the cost of the product.

The government "could" develop housing themselves and cut out the builder, but they don't they pay others to build and put the risk onto others, increased taxation will and they want a higher price or it doesnt get built.

The government would rather add all that extra cost, increasing the price rather than just building houses themselves

Sorry, that should be Land Value Tax.

Phil Moorhouse on his podcast was also pointing out that a land tax would be one way to tax wealth. Others whom I respect, like the economist Tim Leunig, have been saying that.
But it is a bit harder to understand and I'm going to try and find out how it would work.

DaisyAnneReturns

"The highest rate of capital gains you're going to pay on selling say a residential property is 24%. For most other assets, it's 20%. Now compare that with the 40% or 45% top rates of income tax. [This] creates a massive incentive for the very wealthy to get their money as capital gains instead of a salary. It's a systemic quirk that is penalising work."

Personally I think this anomaly is unjustifiable but would be interested to see any justifications people have.

It doesn't work like that, if asset is earning money you only sell if you have to, if it's not earning it probably has a lower value. Higher rates will discourage discretionary sales, nevertheless an increase will yield a useful £10bn plus for very little effort

"The highest rate of capital gains you're going to pay on selling say a residential property is 24%. For most other assets, it's 20%. Now compare that with the 40% or 45% top rates of income tax. [This] creates a massive incentive for the very wealthy to get their money as capital gains instead of a salary. It's a systemic quirk that is penalising work."

Personally I think this anomaly is unjustifiable but would be interested to see any justifications people have.

There are many uncertainties I agree David49.

But these are some of the big ticket items it would be good to see put in train. If not by Burnham by someone else who can lead the party and communicate with the public in a better way.

LemonJam

Thanks for the link DAR which I have just listened to.

IF Burnham becomes MP and IF then PM he will need to achieve Change as promised. I have no doubt he would be better than Starmer communicating his plans.

The ideas put forward in the video absolutely make sense. A review of Council tax is long overdue and AI would easily be able to review house values on an annual basis.

CGT in line with income tax levels- not revolutionary and makes sense as long as allowances in place to reward entrepreneurs and those who contribute towards growth and create jobs.

The best of the three- introduction of a National Care Service is not a new idea to Burnham - nut again has attraction for ordinary people who fear having to sell their homes to pay for social care in later years.

These are sensible changes that can make a difference quickly, IF they actioned, we will see, first he has got to be elected.

Then he challenges Starmer, causes a crisis, there is an awful lot of uncertainties

twaddle

Spinnaker

It's out there in plenty of news sources twaddle so perhaps don't be so quick to tell someone to stop spreading rumours.

Andy Burnham's historical mortgage interest claims relate to his time as a Member of Parliament, when he claimed a total of £18,952 in expenses for the interest portion of his London flat mortgage between May 2010 and June 2012. These claims were permitted under the parliamentary rules at the time.

(Google)

Where's the evidence that the taxpayer is still paying his mortgage interest?

I understand your frustration twaddle- not wishing to detract from DAR's thread.

But it happens so often on Gransnet- claims without substance or source, to deflect from the post subject, seemingly seeking to personally undermine a person, politician etc that they dislike- yet are in fact spreading rumours if there is no factual source.

I feel sure that if Burnham was still claiming MP expenses on a London property, Reform UK and Farage would know about it and be using such knowledge to undermine Burnham in Makerfield by election.

So many deleted posts so early in a thread- whats going on?

Thanks for the link DAR which I have just listened to.

IF Burnham becomes MP and IF then PM he will need to achieve Change as promised. I have no doubt he would be better than Starmer communicating his plans.

The ideas put forward in the video absolutely make sense. A review of Council tax is long overdue and AI would easily be able to review house values on an annual basis.

CGT in line with income tax levels- not revolutionary and makes sense as long as allowances in place to reward entrepreneurs and those who contribute towards growth and create jobs.

The best of the three- introduction of a National Care Service is not a new idea to Burnham - nut again has attraction for ordinary people who fear having to sell their homes to pay for social care in later years.

I didn’t mean to get into a big debate about landlords specifically only that Moorhouse said in the video that wealth had continue to be created despite the banking crisis.

I used that as an example because the banking crisis prompted a lot of people to get into the rental market where they will have made a lot more money, income and capital gains, than they would have done had they left their savings pot in a bank account earning next to no interest for fourteen years.

And that move by many people to make money from renting property (or indeed just owning property) is an area that needs tax reform.

sundowngirl

Graphite:-
'Now we have the situation where FTBs find it hard to buy a “starter” property as landlords snap them up'

I don't think you will find that landlords are snapping up the properties - quite the reverse. The new legislation will make it harder for young people to find homes to rent. From AI

"Private landlords are currently selling properties at much higher rates than they are buying, with many exiting the market entirely. Industry data shows that landlords are more than twice as likely to sell properties as they are to purchase new ones, leading to a shrinking supply of rental homes"

That is true of Private Landlords if you are adding rental income to your personal tax, the new rules and new tax rates make it unworkable. The only way is through a corporate structure, the institutions are gearing up to fund large scale rental portfolio. It's not going to help the poorest, for them it's social

Yes, but they have been since 2008 and the banking crisis which Moorhouse refers to in his video.

But I did manage to read it first though Mollygo thanks

Mollygo

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our <a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://signal-corridor.live/info/netiquette%22%3ETalk guidelines.</a>

Wowsers - now that is quick off the mark 😂

Graphite:-
'Now we have the situation where FTBs find it hard to buy a “starter” property as landlords snap them up'

I don't think you will find that landlords are snapping up the properties - quite the reverse. The new legislation will make it harder for young people to find homes to rent. From AI

"Private landlords are currently selling properties at much higher rates than they are buying, with many exiting the market entirely. Industry data shows that landlords are more than twice as likely to sell properties as they are to purchase new ones, leading to a shrinking supply of rental homes"

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

twaddle

Sorry, DAR, but I really find it tiresome when people drop unsubstantiated claims into random conversations.

I agree twaddle.

Misinformation is put across as fact!

When those of us who care about the truth dare to ask for clarification (or God forbid evidence) we are dismissed and, on occasion, ridiculed … told ‘find it yourself’.

What have we come to, as mature women, when truth and facts no longer matter?

Moorhouse Investors recovered within a couple of years, right? The the wealth is absolutely booming. It has never stopped booming."

If by banking crisis he means the 2008 crash, after which interest rates remained at historical lows for fourteen years, then many people found other ways to make their money work for them. In fact, I would argue that the banking crisis was the reason we have so much wealth inequality now, not least because Quantitative Easing inherently drives wealth upward.

At a domestic level, we saw people taking money out of savings accounts and to buy property to rent out, thereby making unearned income and capital gains more than they would ever have achieve in a savings account including tax free ISAs. Those low interest rates made it easy for people to borrow money cheaply to do the same.

Now we have the situation where FTBs find it hard to buy a “starter” property as landlords snap them up . They become trapped in a cycle of renting. At least the new laws on renters rights gives them more security. Hopefully, those landlords who exploited no fault evictions and those aggrieved that they will have to pay a bit more tax next year will get out of the sector freeing up more properties for FTBs.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Andy Burnham will be just like other MPs or PMs, claiming travel and living expenses and subsidised food, whilst setting taxes that squeeze the middle group.

Before anyone jumps in and says meals are not subsidised I didn’t have time to find another word that explains how
MPs and Peers can access cut-price food and drinks in the Houses of Parliament.

While Parliament states that food is not directly subsidised, the catering services operate at a financial loss—*with millions of pounds in public money used annually to cover operational shortfalls.*

Sorry "twaddle", I quoted and then lost the reply. It was "Understandable'.