Oliver Keating wrote:


but the working class have
remained pretty much static, they haven't shared in the growth at all.

That's probably because they're lazy whingebags.

In article ,
says...
I can't say I have a second home, but why should a second home be heavily
taxed?

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich should
be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice


I can't believe this!

I'm self employed in my spare time, to bring in some extra money.

As soon as I start doing this, the Government want £8 per month, plus 29%
(and then more in due course) of all of my profits.

Because I want to better myself, I have to pay the government almost a third
of what I earn.

If I want to save any of that money, I can only save a certain amount before
I start getting taxed on _that too_ (and as of 2006, I can save even less)

OTOH, I could lie about being disabled/unemployable, and let the same
government pick up the bill for me, (and because I've got nothing else to
do), my 10 children, while I watch Sky Sports all day in my 2 council houses
knocked together.

Social justice my arse!

An awful lot of the people out there who "are clearly very rich" also
clearly work very hard for their money.

(OTOH, there are some really rich chinless wonders out there who don't work
hard, but you can't tar everyone with the same brush)

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:19:42 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:


"Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message
...
I can't say I have a second home, but why should a second home be heavily
taxed?

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich should
be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice
2) It would actually be impossible to raise enough revenue if everyone was
taxed to the same %age because the rich provide a disproportionately large
chunk of revenue.

Therefore ... accepting your arguments, the Government should tax the rich
very heavily and directly. Taxing people who have second homes is
inefficient - you use the word 'clearly' but don't / can't justify.

Of course the Government hasn't got the guts to tax heavily - that would
involve looking less voter friendly !

I like the idea of 'social justice' insofar as a second home is much less
heavily used in terms of local resources: waste disposal, road maintenance
and so forth, and should therefore be comparatively lightly taxed.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:34:33 +0000, "Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)"
wrote:



Of course the Government hasn't got the guts to tax heavily - that would
involve looking less voter friendly !

Never mind the the more mundane fact that doing so would raise *less*
revenue, thus increasing the overal tax burden for everyone.



greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote the
following in:

I like the idea of 'social justice' insofar as a second home is
much less heavily used in terms of local resources: waste
disposal, road maintenance and so forth, and should therefore be
comparatively lightly taxed.

But a second home is an inefficient allocation of resources. Something
that could be used to help solve housing shortage problems instead ends
up sitting unused for large amounts of the time and the owners make
little contribution to the local economy.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

obin May wrote...

"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote:

I like the idea of 'social justice' insofar as a second home is
much less heavily used in terms of local resources: waste
disposal, road maintenance and so forth, and should therefore be
comparatively lightly taxed.

But a second home is an inefficient allocation of resources. Something
that could be used to help solve housing shortage problems instead ends
up sitting unused for large amounts of the time and the owners make
little contribution to the local economy.

I hve bought five houses and sold four.

I have never seen anything in any part of any of the contracts which said or
implied that I was under any obligation to do anything towards "solve
housing shortages" [sic], or to "make contribution to the local economy" -
or even that I had to live in the property being purchased.

Has property law changed in the last tweve years?

"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:19:42 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:


"Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message
...
I can't say I have a second home, but why should a second home be
heavily
taxed?

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich
should
be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice
2) It would actually be impossible to raise enough revenue if everyone
was
taxed to the same %age because the rich provide a disproportionately
large
chunk of revenue.

Therefore ... accepting your arguments, the Government should tax the rich
very heavily and directly. Taxing people who have second homes is
inefficient - you use the word 'clearly' but don't / can't justify.

Of course the Government hasn't got the guts to tax heavily - that would
involve looking less voter friendly !

Of course, there is no need to go to extremes. Taxing an economy very
heavily has negative effects because you are distorting the markets and
reducing incentives, so a compromise must be met between how much poverty
you allow vs overall prosperity.

I like the idea of 'social justice' insofar as a second home is much less
heavily used in terms of local resources: waste disposal, road maintenance
and so forth, and should therefore be comparatively lightly taxed.

Excatly, it is underutilised, and in a country with limited homes and people
finding it difficult to buy, anyone not making proper use of property should
be made to compensate the rest of society through the tax system!

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
....
The thing is, most people with a 2nd home will travel there every weekend
without fail.

For the people I know with second homes, once a month is more probable.

Colin Bignell

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

"Mikael Armstrong" wrote in message
...
I can't say I have a second home, but why should a second home be
heavily
taxed?

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich should
be targeted for tax for two reasons:

What utter bollox. With only a minor change in fortunes and/or by focusing
money in different ways I could perhaps afford a second home and I'm a long
way from being rich by western standards.


The thing is, most people with a 2nd home will travel there every weekend
without fail.

The age and type of the cars clogging the M1 through the Midlands late on
Sunday afternoons doesn't indicate wealth.
They mainly look like ordinary working folk who are visiting, sightseeing
etc.
Contrast it to the age and type of car during the week which indicate reps
and middle/senior management going about their business. These people are
less likely to be clogging roads up at weekends as they've had a bellyfull
during the week!

Pete

Oliver Keating wrote:

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich
should be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice

= jealousy