Elfin, I think most people agree with you that improving social mobility is a good thing. I just don't think many agree with how you think it can and should come about.

Well how does anyone else propose it comes about then, without some pretty drastic measures? The miinute anyone starts talking about taxing those who can afford to lose a fair bit anyway, people get all outraged, but mention that badly needed public services have to be cut to save money, and it's all 'oh well it's the only option'. If it doesn't directly affect you, then you needn't care. If it hits you in the pocket, then you're up in arms. What a selfish society we live in.

Bollocks to that; making the poor even poorer is a bad, bad idea and our society will only go backwards. Making the rich only slightly poorer is a much much better idea. 😀

anokdale; just because things are worse elsewhere, does not mean we should be complacent about the situation here.

To suggest that wealth is just down to 'hard work' is just nonsensical, naive and ignorant.

Taxation is theft.

So is Property… 😉

I'm fine with income taxes being linked to earnings. I'm fine with some luxuries being taxed to pay for vital services. But I'm not fine with the government double-taxing if you choose to save rather than spend, regardless of thresholds. Once you've earned it and paid your tax on it, you should not have to pay further taxes just because you choose not to spend it at this particular time. What if you're saving for something large? Why is your large purchase less worthy than joe bloggs down the street who chooses to spend his cash willy nilly on tat and drinks in the pub?

Personally, I'd see education pushed, properly pushed. And forcible intervention powers for Surestart.

Having been to an ex poly and a Russell group uni, I'm flabbergasted by how different the intake is. Lots of ex private and grammar school pupils when you compare it with the ex-poly. And education, including uni, pretty much dictates your social networks and life chances.

Raise the bottom up, don't drag the top down.

Elfin, comrade.
A lot of what you say is true.
Just not all of it.

It has more to do with the choices a person makes than the policies of the government of the day. Obviously some people have less choices, but they still have choices.

It is still possible, in this country, for someone to work hard at school, get good qualifications, get a good job and become rich. Not mega rich, but richer than if they hadn't worked hard.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Yes they will have had opportunities that others won't, like a stable family background, strong parenting, etc, but perhaps that just shows that their parents also tried the "work hard" ethic and it payed off for them.

I'm just going on my own experience, that's all.

Saying all rich people have exploited others is a statement that is so easily disproved that it makes it meaningless.

Elfin, comrade.
A lot of what you say is true.

Well of course it is. I would have thought any inteligent person would have worked that out by now. 🙄 😀

Coffeeking I think you make some good points and I agree that people shouldn't be taxed for being sensible with their earnings. Too often we are encouraged to spend, spend spend.

Personally, I'd see education pushed, properly pushed.

Raise the bottom up, don't drag the top down.

How do you propose the money to finance that will be raised?

Truth is, the 'Top' has climbed far too high on the backs of others. No-one needs £5 million mansions, several homes arounds the World etc. Not when some poor buggers are starving.

Here's a simplifiction of what I'm on about:

Company makes £X million a year, has £5 million wage budget.

1 boss, £1m py
employs 2 MD's/CEO's whatever, £500,000 ea py
10 managers, £100,000 each
100 workers. £20,000 each.

So the company consists of 113 people. The average wage is £44,248 each. So, if you paid each of the 100 workers £40,000 each, the managers £60,000 each and the two MD's £100,00 each leaving £200,000 for the boss. £200k is plenty for anyone to live on, no? But each worker would then have more economic power to buy their own house and stuff. And their value to the company is higher. It's a much fairer system, and people can still have decent lifestyles. What's wrong with that? Apart from the boss no longer being unnecessarily wealthy? But he/she won't have to moan about paying so much tax, because they'll be paying less. The workers will be paying a higher percentage. Win-win!

This Elfinfesto has been brought to you by the Institute For Fair and Commonsense Economics.

😀

To go back to the property tax

You are all believing the Daily Wail line on this.

Its easy to graduate it or put a threshold on a property tax.

It would have the effect of making property speculation less profitable so would take out some of the effects that drive up property values meaning houses become more affordable for "ordinary" folk. How do "ordinary folk" get on the property ladder now?

Remove property speculation based on house price inflation and you get more affordable housing. Whats not to like?

raise enough from property taxes you could reduce other taxes.

Whats not to like?

The Old rates was a property tax. Some would consider council tax to be a property tax

How do you propose the money to finance that will be raised?

Why would you need huge sums to finance it? I reckon the biggest problem in state education is the paucity of ambition – most of the grammars and private schools work hard to get as many as possible into Oxbridge. My state school discouraged applying!

Remove property speculation based on house price inflation and you get more affordable housing.

Supply and demand. People tend not to have massive unoccupied property portfolios – they have tenants. House prices in the UK are driven by the fact that demand exceeds supply. Taxing expensive houses does nothing to alter that situation. Your reasoning is incorrect.

Edit: And for what it's worth, he appears to be suggesting a tax on all assets, not just bricks and mortar.

Why have a yearly property tax? Surely inheritance tax is fairer – to my mind there's a big difference between something I buy with my already taxed income and something I get given – one is earned, the other not.

Tron – the fact that you can gain money from property speculation drives up property prices. Remove this and prices will realign.

if buy to let was not so profitable ( in the past) then prices of suitable properties would not have been driven so high.

Supply and demand – reduce demand then prices drop.

Supply and demand – reduce demand then prices drop.

You don't get it. There is a total demand for housing – be it let or bought. Landlords don't buy houses to leave them empty, and people who are renting are very often saving to buy.

The only way to reduce demand for housing is to resort to real left wing politics – telling people what they want.

I laughed at this:

..resorts to abuse! Thicko!

Tax.. meh.

real left wing politics – telling people what they want.

As opposed to real right wing politics?

How the hell can you save to buy if you are renting, unless you live in a hell pit????

Rents are so high to cover the landlords purchase price. After paying the rental agent and insurances / repairs / overheads the landlord is lucky if the buy to let mortgage is barely covered.

viscious circle

They look like a pair of strict disciplinarians. Chief Whip's office?

Tron – its you that miss the point.

When property becomes a commodity to trade in rather than just a place to live it pushes up prices. This is clear, acknowledged and obvious. its a part of the mechanism for property inflation. Waht is happening is people are being priced out of the market – so for every property speculator that enters the market a potential buyer is priced out of the market.

A property is worth more as a buy to let than as a buy to live – so the buy to let folk can afford to pay more than they buy to live – thus another property becomes a rental property rather than a buy to live.

This effect is clearly aknowledged.

How the hell can you save to buy if you are renting, unless you live in a hell pit????

Rents are so high to cover the landlords purchase price. After paying the rental agent and insurances / repairs / overheads the landlord is lucky if the buy to let mortgage is barely covered.

This is very true, if you live in a big city like London, Edinburgh or central Manchester. My LL 'earns' about £50 a month from my flat. And considering maintenance costs him about that, after all costs, I'd be surprised if he's not making a monthly loss now. I'm expecting him to give me notice at any time, as he'll need to put the place on the market. Still, he shouldn't have been so naive and borrowed money to buy something he can't really afford. He lives with his parents FFS! Trying to play the 'I own property you know' bollocks game. He'll definitely be suffering from negative equity, and the local housing association who own the block are planning to demolish it within the next few years. So he can't sell it, and he'll have to accept a Compulsory Purchase Order/replacement of the same 'value'. Do I feel sorry for him? No. He made the decision to 'buy' it. Saw the pound signs and not the reality.

I'm not too sure that everyone who actually has savings or has worked hard to get a good job to buy a nice house has done it through the old boys network or standing on the backs of others, you can't really say the middleclass are like this either. I've worked hard to get to a position to buy a nice house for my family and the only debt I've ever had was a mortgage and I've not done it on daddy's purse. As a sensible person I deny myself things that I cannot afford, however if I just said "F*** it" and maxed out a few credit cards I could pay less tax and some how would deserve to.

This story is a load of bolloxs anyway as these policies would never happen, governments need middleclass housewifes and right wing grannies to get voted in.

How the hell can you save to buy if you are renting, unless you live in a hell pit????

Rent a 2 bed flat at approx £500-£600 a month round here, and don't spend much on beer. 😆

The landlord often isn't paying off a great deal of capital.

When property becomes a commodity to trade in rather than just a place to live it pushes up prices

Whilst speculation can cause bubbles, it's not the driving factor behind long term house price inflation. Orange juice is traded as commodity, but it's not heading for the moon is it? Restricted supply makes it appear to be a one way bet – hence the bubbles. Demand outstrips supply for housing in the UK, and it's very well documented.

I'm not too sure that everyone who actually has savings or has worked hard to get a good job to buy a nice house has done it through the old boys network or standing on the backs of others, you can't really say the middleclass are like this either.

No, but many of the top earners have.