But to pay the taxes they'd have to sell their home and then they wouldn't have it anymore to pay taxes on.
It's a bit pointless.
General Election 2010 Page 88
Quote: Badge @ May 6 2010, 1:27 AM BSTI'm afraid, Aaron, that this is the sort of comment that makes it obvious we disagree on politics.
More than happy to disagree on these issues.
I'll point out, I'm not necessarily opposed to a 'mansion tax' entirely, but not with that threshold. Considering the way property prices have risen just in the past decade, never mind the past 20 or 30 years, £1 million is too low a figure to slap on all properties. AFAIK they're not, but if - for example - they were proposing to link the tax to the owner also having resided in the property for less than 15 years, and/or maybe to level of current earnings, then that'd be fine. Otherwise, raise the limit to maybe £2 or even £2.5 million. They wouldn't rake in as much cash from it, but they wouldn't miss out on a massive amount, and they certainly wouldn't victimise so many people who are just (un)lucky enough to have their property increase highly in value.
Quote: Badge @ May 6 2010, 1:45 AM BSTI mean what most people consider to be their net wealth, encompassing all their assets. But I bow to Aaron's definition.
Quote: The Giggle-o @ May 6 2010, 1:46 AM BSTAsset rich, cash poor.
What he and zooo said. Yes, 'wealth' would include assets such as the value of property; but if we're going arguing down that road as to whether such residents would be able to afford the proposed taxes, then I guess the proponents are also happy seeing people forced into selling their homes to pay for nursing care?
Quote: Chappers @ May 6 2010, 1:46 AM BSTIn the great scheme of things they are bloody rich. I'm not! And I don't think you are either Aaron - unless you have had a priveleged upbringing and can afford to live without earning any money.
I wish I had. I do so dearly wish that I had. But alas, I didn't, and I am not, but I am having to live without an income right now.
Whilst we're at it, I find inheritance/death taxes to be morally abhorrent and believe they should be scrapped immediately.
Quote: Aaron @ May 6 2010, 1:53 AM BSTWhat he and zooo said. Yes, 'wealth' would include assets such as the value of property; but if we're going arguing down that road as to whether such residents would be able to afford the proposed taxes, then I guess the proponents are also happy seeing people forced into selling their homes to pay for nursing care?
Yes, the value of the house is only any good to people if they sell it, which means major upheaval and a loss of a fair amount of money from stamp duty, removals, estate agent and solicitor fees without the cost of a new home.
As a sort of side point, If they are elderly any money they release from the sale of their house will be considered if they require residential/nursing care and any money they give to family will also be taken in to account up to 7 years prior to the necessity for care. With nursing/residential care in London and the South East averaging about £600-800 a week (roughly £44,000 a year) it's not as if they would be living the high life by virtue of the value of their assets.
(I've waffled too much, sorry)
Quote: The Giggle-o @ May 6 2010, 1:59 AM BSTThe value of the house is only any good to people if they sell it, which means major upheaval and a loss of a fair amount of money from stamp duty, removals, estate agent and solicitor fees without the cost of a new home.
As a sort of side point, If they are elderly any money they release from the sale of their house will be considered if they require residential/nursing care and any money they give to family will also be taken in to account up to 7 years prior to the necessity for care. With nursing/residential care in London and the South East averaging about £600-800 a week (roughly £44,000 a year) it's not as if they would be living the high life by virtue of the value of their assets.
And this. 
Quote: Aaron @ May 6 2010, 1:56 AM BSTMore than happy to disagree on these issues.
I'll point out, I'm not necessarily opposed to a 'mansion tax' entirely, but not with that threshold. Considering the way property prices have risen just in the past decade, never mind the past 20 or 30 years, £1 million is too low a figure to slap on all properties. AFAIK they're not, but if - for example - they were proposing to link the tax to the owner also having resided in the property for less than 15 years, and/or maybe to level of current earnings, then that'd be fine. Otherwise, raise the limit to maybe £2 or even £2.5 million. They wouldn't rake in as much cash from it, but they wouldn't miss out on a massive amount, and they certainly wouldn't victimise so many people who are just (un)lucky enough to have their property increase highly in value.
What he and zooo said. Yes, 'wealth' would include assets such as the value of property; but if we're going arguing down that road as to whether such residents would be able to afford the proposed taxes, then I guess the proponents are also happy seeing people forced into selling their homes to pay for nursing care?
I think it's only fair to point out that I was not commenting on a "mansion tax" as you call it, but the notion that £1m isn't much. Having read back I might have got you a little out of context as you were talking about the tax thing, so apologies for that.
Having said that, I don't think it's wrong to consider such a tax or to have such a threshold. One of the biggest - actually, probably the single biggest - inequities in this country is the property market. By luck, whim, fancy or otherwise a large group of people have gained material assets (even if they still live in them, they are wealthier by most definitions) due to the happenstance of when they got on the infamous property ladder. These are the people who benefited from property prices outstripping inflation by large degree over the last 20 years or so. Meanwhile another group of people, of similar basic means, effort and general do-goodedness have not been able to buy property, or worse, they managed to do so at a time of economic downturn (Tory or Labour governed) and ended up financially at the other scale of "net wealth". These people have done nothing different from the first group other than experiencing the fuzzy end of the lollipop over when their life circumstances let them into the property game.
I don't think either group deserves their circumstances and as a result I don't see a problem with the winners paying something back to the state.
This is all horrendous stuff for politicians, which is why they can't ever answer the question "is it good or bad if house prices fall?"
Quote: Badge @ May 6 2010, 2:15 AM BSTI think it's only fair to point out that I was not commenting on a "mansion tax" as you call it, but the notion that £1m isn't much. Having read back I might have got you a little out of context as you were talking about the tax thing, so apologies for that.
Oh no, don't get me wrong, £1 million is a lot of cash. Not so much as it used to be of course - nowhere near enough to retire on, for example - but it's certainly not an insignificant sum itself. It's specifically when talking about the value of property that it becomes less significant, particularly if that property is in the south or in a city centre.
What time do the polls close? When can we expect to hear the results?
Polls close at 10pm our time. a decent amount of results should be in 4 or 5 hours later and that usually is enough to know but if it's close and turnout is up then the result might take ages.
Thanks. Guess I'll know before I go to bed.
Then I can start criticizing your choices and butt into your political process. Oh wait, it was creepy and annoying when Europeans did that during our election and the same goes for your elections. 
Godot suggests you vote Labour today.
Here's a list of some of the things Labour has done since they got in. (Note the Tories opposed most of these).
Banned handguns
Banned foxhunting
Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals
Introduced a National Minimum Wage and raised it
Re-introduced matrons to hospitals
Introduced NHS Direct
Introduced paternity leave for fathers
Scrapped Clause 28
Introduced Civil Partberships
Lowered the age of consent for gays to 16
Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament
Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly
Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland
Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70
Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s
Free eye test for over 60s
Free TV licences for over 75s
Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds
Introduced paid holidays for temps
Re-introduced Mayor and city-wide government for London
Introduced £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s
Introduced child tax credit and raised child benefit by 26%
Free entry to Museums and galleries
In 1996 it cost £13.50 for one adult to visit the Natural History Museum in Kensington. £13.50! It's now free.
They also didn't raise VAT. Not once.
VAT was introduced by the Tories in 1973. Thatcher raised it from 8% to 15%. John Major took it up to 17.5% where it has remained. If the Tories get in they will increase it. They have raised it every term since theyintroducedit.
Luckily they won't get in. I predict a Labour majority of 4 seats (ie they lose 48 seats) 
Banned handguns? They've lost my imaginary vote for eternity.
Quote: Aaron @ May 5 2010, 11:34 PM BSTF**k knows what the Lib Dems want.
They want to make significant defence cuts, which was why a Labour Lord was on the radio telling us to consider tactically voting for the Tories (yes, the Tories) for the sake of the 'defence of the realm'.
Also, on this issue, Nick Clegg said.
"I don't think any politician should tell you how to vote," ...which is weird; why is he bothering to campaign?
Just for the record the LibDem mansion tax is on properties over £2m. I don't know anyone who lives in a property over £2m. And I know a lot of people who could afford to pay more tax.
Quote: DaButt @ May 6 2010, 5:15 AM BSTBanned handguns? They've lost my imaginary vote for eternity.
We had a perceived rise in gun crime, although in fact it was still absolutely minimal compared with, say, knife crime. The government felt it had to be seen to be dealing with this non-crisis, so they decided to come down hard on legally owned handguns, even though clearly it was only illegal ones that were being used.
Who is the first BCG to vote?
Exit Poll!
I thought as a bit of fun, I'd run the BCG exit poll.
Anyone who wants to can PM me with their vote and the results will be expressed after 10.00 tonight. Obviously I won't post who you voted for just the percentages.