Support NeoGAF

[milanbaros]

I can't really see any reason to disagree with you, but it seems like an incredibly rare situation.

If the end goal is to have property, then you'd just buy a house to begin with, rather than invest in shares. Also, Person A is unlikely to spend those untaxed gains on anything other than more property in a more inflated market, so they effectively come out neutral.

I would argue that is rare because of the tax advantage of owning property over other assets.

There are a lot of advantages to renting but the tax advantage of owning a property and the poor protection of renters has made the decision warped.

I disagree that they come out neutral. They have come out as neutral as the person who pays for his rent using shares and has seen his wealth double due to returns on investments, but is still expected to pay tax.

I don't mean to pick on you at all but there is a very common opinion that they should have a right to the imputed rent and capital gains tax free because its their home and therefore 'doesn't count'. Try telling someone it doesn't count who doesn't own a property but instead rents.

And guess who is benefiting the most from this tax free bonanza? It isn't the low income or poor.

 

[nekkid]

I would argue that is rare because of the tax advantage of owning property over other assets.

There are a lot of advantages to renting but the tax advantage of owning a property and the poor protection of renters has made the decision warped.

I disagree that they come out neutral. They have come out as neutral as the person who pays for his rent using shares and has seen his wealth double due to returns on investments, but is still expected to pay tax.

I don't mean to pick on you at all but there is a very common opinion that they should have a right to the imputed rent and capital gains tax free because its their home and therefore 'doesn't count'. Try telling someone it doesn't count who doesn't own a property but instead rents.

And guess who is benefiting the most from this tax free bonanza? It isn't the low income or poor.

I think "neutral" was the wrong term. Basically, the gains I make on my house will not be something I will ever see. It will be used to offset the increase in house prices when I move. I won't gain from it - it'll keep me sort of level with regards to the market.

I guess you could downsize to try and get some of that back, but that's a fools errand and you lose a lot of money in the process.

 

[milanbaros]

I think "neutral" was the wrong term. Basically, the gains I make on my house will not be something I will ever see. It will be used to offset the increase in house prices when I move. I won't gain from it - it'll keep me sort of level with regards to the market.

I guess you could downsize to try and get some of that back, but that's a fools errand and you lose a lot of money in the process.

You see the gains very clearly when you buy a new property. You are able to put all your gain in asset value against the new property, which in turn will decrease the mortgage you require.

If you wanted to sell and live on an island, you can use that wealth to do so, if you want to sell your home to afford care in old age, you can and you can be sure that money is just as real as any made from employment or investments.

How do you think you don't see it?

 

[Rodelero]

I pretty much agree with you - in my very first post in this thread I said that council tax is regressive. But I just don't think your solution is the solution.

Houses are worth what people will pay for them. I don't think an old person whose house has increased in value 10x since they bought it, but only has a state pension, is especially to blame for that situation, and I don't think "sell up and move" is a fair solution. If they've lived there 50 years they would probably like to continue living there. But fair enough if you disagree with that.

That might be an acceptable policy in a country that didn't have a broken economy and broken social contract, but I don't think we're actually in a situation where "Oh well, they've been living there fifty years, you can't make it unaffordable for them now" is really workable.

-

First we created a nation of home owners, which was deeply admirable.

Then that nation of home owners continually voted to benefit home owners.

Then we stopped building homes, and the nation of home owners watched as their homes exploded in value.

Now the nation's children cannot afford to be homeowners, and instead have to rent, preventing them from accumulating wealth.

Now the nation's children has to pay an additional tax to pay for the education necessary to work in a modern economy (the student loan).

Now the nation of home owners are drawing pensions, bolstered by a triple lock which has ensured that they get a bigger, and bigger slice of the pie. Pensioners are now, on average, earning more than working people.

Now the nation of homeowners is elderly and decrepit. They have massive health and social care requirements.

Who is going to pay for the nation of homeowners? That's obvious, their children, and immigrants.

Who is going to pay for the nation of homeowners' children? Who the fuck cares. The nation of homeowners will already be dead.

-

This country is sleepwalking through several crises into a complete disaster. It's time to stop acting like everything is normal and start thinking radically. If we continue to look out for the interests of wealthy pensioners first and foremost, we're all going to be screwed in the long run.

 

[Beefy]

So you aee saying there is a chance?

 

[Theonik]

This country is sleepwalking through several crises into a complete disaster. It's time to stop acting like everything is normal and start thinking radically. If we continue to look out for the interests of wealthy pensioners first and foremost, we're all going to be screwed in the long run.

Trouble is they actually vote whereas their children and grandchildren either don't or refuse to vote for their interests.

 

[jonno394]

I also quite like the weird way they collect it. For some reason they split it into 10, rather than 12 monthly payments. As I just write off that amount each month, I sneakily enjoy having those two months at the start of the year as bonus months to buy pointless shit with.

Lol that's what i like too. First no council tax payday for me is end of Feb, right in time for Nintendo Switch!

 

[Portugeezer]

Ffs , working to pay bills and not live life.

 

[Lego Boss]

That might be an acceptable policy in a country that didn't have a broken economy and broken social contract, but I don't think we're actually in a situation where "Oh well, they've been living there fifty years, you can't make it unaffordable for them now" is really workable.

-

First we created a nation of home owners, which was deeply admirable.

Then that nation of home owners continually voted to benefit home owners.

Then we stopped building homes, and the nation of home owners watched as their homes exploded in value.

Now the nation's children cannot afford to be homeowners, and instead have to rent, preventing them from accumulating wealth.

Now the nation's children has to pay an additional tax to pay for the education necessary to work in a modern economy (the student loan).

Now the nation of home owners are drawing pensions, bolstered by a triple lock which has ensured that they get a bigger, and bigger slice of the pie. Pensioners are now, on average, earning more than working people.

Now the nation of homeowners is elderly and decrepit. They have massive health and social care requirements.

Who is going to pay for the nation of homeowners? That's obvious, their children, and immigrants.

Who is going to pay for the nation of homeowners' children? Who the fuck cares. The nation of homeowners will already be dead.

-

This country is sleepwalking through several crises into a complete disaster. It's time to stop acting like everything is normal and start thinking radically. If we continue to look out for the interests of wealthy pensioners first and foremost, we're all going to be screwed in the long run.

Compulsory sale of large houses to families who need it, rather than having OAPs rattling around in houses that they don't need, don't hear and don't care about. They can spend the money on health and social care.

I suggested that to a friend at the weekend and got torn apart.

I think it's perfectly rational. If you don't need it, you don't need it . . .

 

[Maledict]

Compulsory sale of large houses to families who need it, rather than having OAPs rattling around in houses that they don't need, don't hear and don't care about. They can spend the money on health and social care.

I suggested that to a friend at the weekend and got torn apart.

I think it's perfectly rational. If you don't need it, you don't need it . . .

I'd describe myself as a leftie, but state seizing private property because they don't think you need it is like a million steps too far for me. I don't technically need a console and a Pc, should I be prevented from that?

What we need is to be building thousands of new homes a year. Make it easier to build on brown field land in the cities, and get rid of the fucking green belt. It's an anachronism that harls back to the Victoria dreams of the countryside that actively hurts younger people. The country will still be green and verdant if it went, it also wouldn't have entire generations impoverished and stuck renting for their entire lives.

 

[Rodelero]

Trouble is they actually vote whereas their children and grandchildren either don't or refuse to vote for their interests.

As widespread as this rhetoric is, I don't think it's particularly helpful, partially because it's an exaggerated problem and mostly because there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Though it would be deeply unfair to suggest that all elderly people vote in the same way, they do form an enormous and relatively monolithic voting block with relatively similar interests. Young people have interests that change radically and quickly, with life milestones like university, finding a job, having children, children going to school, and so on and so forth. The system worked better when there were less old people and old people were old for less time. Now? Well, it seems like doom-mongering to say it's actually permanently broken, but I'm not really sure how it can be fixed.

 

[Rodelero]

Compulsory sale of large houses to families who need it, rather than having OAPs rattling around in houses that they don't need, don't hear and don't care about. They can spend the money on health and social care.

I suggested that to a friend at the weekend and got torn apart.

I think it's perfectly rational. If you don't need it, you don't need it . . .

Even if it was rational, it's probably unworkable and a pledge that would make any party or politician unelectable. The only way to fix the housing problem is with more houses.

 

[Ruddles72]

This country is sleepwalking through several crises into a complete disaster. It's time to stop acting like everything is normal and start thinking radically. If we continue to look out for the interests of wealthy pensioners first and foremost, we're all going to be screwed in the long run.

Didn't want to quote the entire post, but you are 100% correct, you really are. The Pinch was a good book on exactly this issue. Sadly, as others have pointed out, the "grey vote" is motivated and disciplined in turning out. Young people are easily distracted from voting by the here and now of life.

I wonder if the current generation of pensioners, being the baby boomers, is different from the generation that went before. Are all old people essentially selfish (even with regards to future generations, that presumably they feel some responsibility for), or is this just part of the human condition? Am I too destined to be a miserly old git voting for my triple lock even as the young suffer?

Depressing.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Compulsory sale of large houses to families who need it, rather than having OAPs rattling around in houses that they don't need, don't hear and don't care about. They can spend the money on health and social care.

I suggested that to a friend at the weekend and got torn apart.

I think it's perfectly rational. If you don't need it, you don't need it . . .

Here we go, property is theft? That's the endgame with this line of thinking.

 

[milanbaros]

Here we go, property is theft? That's the endgame with this line of thinking.

I think that's silly. It just needs to be taxed fairly so that it is properly utilised.

Using my income tax approach above it would be £5,000 a year split between all owners of the property on a £500k property.

A high income couple would pay £9,000.

Edit: Using a residential property value of £6.8tn in the U.K. and imputed rent rate of 4% and the lowest tax rate of 25% would raise £68bn.

This is double what is raised through council tax and stamp duty, and is much fairer.

It would also significantly decrease house prices, increase transactions because of no stamp duty and also people downsizing to reflect what they can afford.

You could have a big fall in house prices, increased tax revenue (even with the fall in prices), a fairer system where the richest pay the most and a more liquid market.

To make it even fairer the mortgage balance could be deducted from the asset value (to reflect net worth), which would help first time buyers.

Even with this deduction I still think it would earn more than council tax and stamp duty.

 

[Theonik]

As widespread as this rhetoric is, I don't think it's particularly helpful, partially because it's an exaggerated problem and mostly because there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Though it would be deeply unfair to suggest that all elderly people vote in the same way, they do form an enormous and relatively monolithic voting block with relatively similar interests. Young people have interests that change radically and quickly, with life milestones like university, finding a job, having children, children going to school, and so on and so forth. The system worked better when there were less old people and old people were old for less time. Now? Well, it seems like doom-mongering to say it's actually permanently broken, but I'm not really sure how it can be fixed.

My point is that the reason no-one makes laws to hurt those pensioners is that they'd be screwed from holding office again whether people like it or not.

Moreover under fptp, the youth being divided works in their disadvantage.

 

[TeddyBoy]

This country is sleepwalking through several crises into a complete disaster. It's time to stop acting like everything is normal and start thinking radically. If we continue to look out for the interests of wealthy pensioners first and foremost, we're all going to be screwed in the long run.

I was making this exact point to my dad on Saturday, once my generation gets old, we'll be screwed. No pension, no savings, some maybe not even a house.

Thankfully I won't feel this particular pinch as I live with my dad and he'll be paying any increase.

 

[Joni]

Trouble is they actually vote whereas their children and grandchildren either don't or refuse to vote for their interests.

That happens when you have to work all the time. You don't have time to vote. Old people vote more because they literally have nothing else to do.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

That happens when you have to work all the time. You don't have time to vote. Old people vote more because they literally have nothing else to do.

Oh please, the polls are open until 10pm. No one doesn't have time to vote, stop making excuses.

 

[Dougald]

Oh please, the polls are open until 10pm. No one doesn't have time to vote, stop making excuses.

Even if you work a demanding position (say, a Doctor working long shifts), registering for a postal vote is easy enough. There's no real excuse not to vote other than 'I didn't want to' or extenuating circumstances

 

[frankie_baby]

I believe we need compulsory voting in this country, only then will we see politicians truly attempt to appeal to all instead if just those that bother voting