Poorest are paying most (From South Wales Argus)

The tax system is wrong. Just because you may live in a bigger property doesn't mean you have more disposable income.Often it's less.

33daverave wrote:
The tax system is wrong. Just because you may live in a bigger property doesn't mean you have more disposable income.Often it's less.

Quite so. The value of your house is no indicator of income or wealth.

Led a protest outside any banks or petrol stations lately? No, thought not. Pay you way and stop asking for handouts.

On the inside wrote:
Led a protest outside any banks or petrol stations lately? No, thought not. Pay you way and stop asking for handouts.

Thought you Labour people were experts in handouts.

Llanmartinangel wrote:

33daverave wrote:
The tax system is wrong. Just because you may live in a bigger property doesn't mean you have more disposable income.Often it's less.

Quite so. The value of your house is no indicator of income or wealth.

Off course it is, your not going to live in an expensive property and be skint, you would downsize....simples.

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

33daverave wrote:
The tax system is wrong. Just because you may live in a bigger property doesn't mean you have more disposable income.Often it's less.

Quite so. The value of your house is no indicator of income or wealth.

Off course it is, your not going to live in an expensive property and be skint, you would downsize....simples.

That's tripe Howie. People's income more than halves on retirement. Why should they be assumed to be as wealthy as the working couple next door. Besides, we've seen tons of comment on here about benefit changes forcing people to move out of inner cities and away from their communities. Are you suggesting that we should use the tax system against people who have bought their houses and aren't subsidised to achieve the same? It's no wonder people think socialists are anti-aspiration.

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

33daverave wrote:
The tax system is wrong. Just because you may live in a bigger property doesn't mean you have more disposable income.Often it's less.

Quite so. The value of your house is no indicator of income or wealth.

Off course it is, your not going to live in an expensive property and be skint, you would downsize....simples.

That's tripe Howie. People's income more than halves on retirement. Why should they be assumed to be as wealthy as the working couple next door. Besides, we've seen tons of comment on here about benefit changes forcing people to move out of inner cities and away from their communities. Are you suggesting that we should use the tax system against people who have bought their houses and aren't subsidised to achieve the same? It's no wonder people think socialists are anti-aspiration.

I think you have missed the point, Martin. When I retired if we had not been able to maintain our standard of living I would have downsized. I don't understand people who in their twilight years remain in expensive houses when they have little in the bank.

'It's no wonder people think socialists are anti-aspiration'.

Not again Martin! You should really get help, I think your suffering from something akin to 'Mcarthyite Syndrome'.....lol.

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

33daverave wrote:
The tax system is wrong. Just because you may live in a bigger property doesn't mean you have more disposable income.Often it's less.

Quite so. The value of your house is no indicator of income or wealth.

Off course it is, your not going to live in an expensive property and be skint, you would downsize....simples.

That's tripe Howie. People's income more than halves on retirement. Why should they be assumed to be as wealthy as the working couple next door. Besides, we've seen tons of comment on here about benefit changes forcing people to move out of inner cities and away from their communities. Are you suggesting that we should use the tax system against people who have bought their houses and aren't subsidised to achieve the same? It's no wonder people think socialists are anti-aspiration.

I think you have missed the point, Martin. When I retired if we had not been able to maintain our standard of living I would have downsized. I don't understand people who in their twilight years remain in expensive houses when they have little in the bank.

'It's no wonder people think socialists are anti-aspiration'.

Not again Martin! You should really get help, I think your suffering from something akin to 'Mcarthyite Syndrome'.....lol.

Not what I meant but I think you knew that. I have neighbours all with similar value houses. One couple retired, (but have a large family), a pair of highly paid professionals in another and one man working in the third. Pretending they all earn the same (all band H for CT) when they are around 100k apart is nuts. We are wedded to a belief that if someone has something then removing it from them by ever more devious means and giving it away is a good plan. (Gordon Brown's 'extracting the maximum amount of goose feathers with the least amount of hissing' theory). Some people like nice houses and live modestly in them, they earned it, their choice. Who are you to say they should pay extra for that choice? The poll tax was opposed as it was deemed regressive, I.e not predicated on ability to pay. Neither is council tax as it uses crude subjective judgement. Added to which it shouldn't be a tax at all but payment for services.

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

33daverave wrote:
The tax system is wrong. Just because you may live in a bigger property doesn't mean you have more disposable income.Often it's less.

Quite so. The value of your house is no indicator of income or wealth.

Off course it is, your not going to live in an expensive property and be skint, you would downsize....simples.

That's tripe Howie. People's income more than halves on retirement. Why should they be assumed to be as wealthy as the working couple next door. Besides, we've seen tons of comment on here about benefit changes forcing people to move out of inner cities and away from their communities. Are you suggesting that we should use the tax system against people who have bought their houses and aren't subsidised to achieve the same? It's no wonder people think socialists are anti-aspiration.

I think you have missed the point, Martin. When I retired if we had not been able to maintain our standard of living I would have downsized. I don't understand people who in their twilight years remain in expensive houses when they have little in the bank.

'It's no wonder people think socialists are anti-aspiration'.

Not again Martin! You should really get help, I think your suffering from something akin to 'Mcarthyite Syndrome'.....lol.

Not what I meant but I think you knew that. I have neighbours all with similar value houses. One couple retired, (but have a large family), a pair of highly paid professionals in another and one man working in the third. Pretending they all earn the same (all band H for CT) when they are around 100k apart is nuts. We are wedded to a belief that if someone has something then removing it from them by ever more devious means and giving it away is a good plan. (Gordon Brown's 'extracting the maximum amount of goose feathers with the least amount of hissing' theory). Some people like nice houses and live modestly in them, they earned it, their choice. Who are you to say they should pay extra for that choice? The poll tax was opposed as it was deemed regressive, I.e not predicated on ability to pay. Neither is council tax as it uses crude subjective judgement. Added to which it shouldn't be a tax at all but payment for services.

Oh dear Martin I think your having a bad day. I was not commenting on the Council Tax, Gordon Brown, the rights and wrongs or trying to make a political point and I certainly don't wish to take anything off anyone, it was a personal observation that If on retirement I had not been able to maintain my standard of living I would downsize, because whilst there are obviously people who would be, as you say, happy to live modestly to remain in their house, their choice and good luck to them, I am not one of them and I am not wedded to bricks and mortar, most probably as I have bought, sold and moved in so many locations/ country's over the years that I would find it easy to move but I still can not understand people who remain in the family home with little money whilst sitting on a pile, whats the expression? 'Cash poor, asset rich'. I hope and don't expect to be in that position as I have lived in this house for 7 years now the longest since I left my parent as a teenager but If I ever am the 'for sale' board will be up straight away.