O
I can see how somebody might argue in favour of some form of share taxation, but not a property tax.Replace the word "house" above with "share" and you might see how somebody might argue in favour of some form of property taxation
Why should someone who had worked hard and bought a house be penalised
because they have had the good fortune to find it has gone up in value,
be they young, old widowed or married?
Because they are being taxed on their income and so the taxation is relative to their ability to pay (in general) whereas a tax on a property would mean that average income people would be forced out of areas that become expensive due to the disproportionate increase in property tax relative to income.why should someone who had studied hard and gotten a good qualification be penalised because they have had the good fortune to find a high paying job?
You can't put it on a PPR for the reasons outlined by Tommy
what about a sole trader, a Doctor or an individual with two or three properties who just forms a company?
So if you work hard and buy a house with the money you have already paid tax on you should pay tax again every year on the value of your house? I take the point that if you have vast assets but a low income you should not be exempt from tax but I just can't see how it would not be a blunt instrument.you've avoided the main point which is a about fairly spreading the burden to run the state. even with your hypothetical situation, i don't why someone who has inherited a great deal of wealth but is incapable of creating income is exempt from paying their share to run the country while someone who began with nothing and has had to work for every penny pays much more than them
sorryPurple, you misquoted me
That's not what I'm saying. If I owned 15 houses (if only!) and formed a company to own then and run them then in order to tax me would you have to tax every business in the country? That's a real question, I'd like to know.you cannot currently evade tax by forming a company to hold assets or to pay for your holidays or dvds or whatever. in fact, in many cases you'll end up worse off
That would get over all of the above points but should tax not be levied on income derived from an asset rather than the asset itself? The implications of a general wealth tax are massive. Farmers would have to sell up, people would have to move house just to get out of an area that has gone up in value, companies whose wage and cost structures are based on current outgoings would have to move out of built up/expensive areas, people in this country could not own shares unless they had pots of cash etc etc....surely any wealth tax system would have to count the value of shareholdings held by each individual in quoted and unquoted companies?
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?