Good Going Government

@p1kef1sh (45681)
February 21, 2013 12:51am CST
Here in the UK our government seems to have a somewhat negative view of people at either end of the socio-economic structure. Britain is well known for its history of generous welfare benefits. People that live in social housing have been informed that if they have more bedrooms in their house than they require Then they will experience a reduction in benefit. Conversely those people that own their own homes that are valued at more than £2 million, and there are many such houses here, may have an additional tax levied upon them. Many people bought such houses years ago when they cost far less than they are worth today and some will not be in a position to pay this so-called mansion tax. The deputy prime minister's solution is that people that find themselves in that situation should sell their homes. So rich or poor we find the edges of the tube being squeezed; that will put pressure on those of us that are in the middle. Happy days!
3 people like this
7 responses
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
21 Feb 13
That makes no sense. It's as if our governments are trying their best to take all the wealth from the people and have it for the government, which, of course, is what's happening. We're facing higher taxes here, too. The insane thing is that we have commercials on television encouraging people to look into getting food stamps (free food for the poor but many other people get them) and to look into getting public assistance in other ways. At the same time our "leaders" are screaming that we need to tax the rich more, and they already pay most of the income taxes that are paid in. Nearly 50% of our people with income pay no income taxes. I would ask your government and mine--where do you think the money for welfare comes from?! Of course, they know it comes from the working people and they try to hide that fact from the population, preferring them to think that the government has an endless pot of money from some money tree somewhere. Eventually there will be just two classes--the poor population and the rich politicians.
1 person likes this
@p1kef1sh (45681)
21 Feb 13
The crazy thing is that the Government thinks that it is doing a good job. All the folk at the wealthy end of society approved of the benefits people being hammered. But now they are complaining because they are being hit too!
1 person likes this
• United States
21 Feb 13
Nearly 50% of our people with income pay no income taxes. That is because our tax code is so messed up! I got a small refund this year, but most of it will go to paying what I owe the state. The difference will go to paying the fees I owe for filing, so I basically get nothing. Our Congress has done little work-I believe the number of days since Congress has passed major legislation is more than 900! That's more than 3 years! If any of them were out in the public sector, they'd have gotten fired for not doing their jobs! Personally, I feel that our government as a whole is more interested at pointing fingers and laying blame, instead of working on compromises serve their constituents.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
21 Feb 13
Scorpiobabes, our tax code desperately needs to be discarded and a new, simpler one made. But it is too profitable for our Congress to keep the old one, they make millions from lobbyists and special interests when they can hand out tax favors and advantages. They are working for themselves. Vote them out! 90% of people are dissatisfied with Congress but about 85% of those representatives are re-elected. VOTE THEM OUT, EVERY ONE!!! Yes, our government is all about laying blame and getting nothing done because it is profitable. They don't care about the people they are supposed to be serving but think that the people should serve the government. We absolutely must change this and I'd rather it be peaceful. But if things keep up like this our people will soon be in such dire straits that they can't feed their children unless they are on government assistance and then it might not be such a peaceful change.
@BarBaraPrz (51823)
• St. Catharines, Ontario
21 Feb 13
Oh, yeah, makes a lot of sense! If you have more bedrooms than you need you can just rent them out, so you don't need the full welfare benefit. Then, of course, we'll tax you on the income!
1 person likes this
@BarBaraPrz (51823)
• St. Catharines, Ontario
21 Feb 13
And round and round it goes...
@p1kef1sh (45681)
21 Feb 13
Of you rent, and you can't everywhere, you lose benefits corresponding to the a lint that you earn from renting. No real incentive therefore, however, many people may find themselves in even harder hardship because they cannot afford the cut in benefits and will be evicted!
2 people like this
@pumpkinjam (8876)
• United Kingdom
21 Feb 13
I don't think anything the Government does makes much sense. I've been involved in several discussions where there are people who make statements such as "if I couldn't afford to live in my house, I'd have to sell it and move so other people should do the same". Clearly, like politicians, these people have no concept of reality where it isn't that easy, especially if you don't actually own your own home. At the other end, while I find it difficult to have sympathy for someone whose house is worth over £2 million, I can see the problem with that. It's like the way our Council Tax is worked out - it's based on the estimated value of your home, regardless of your income (or whether you actually own your home). I think everyone is being squeezed. Except the politicians of course. It has been suggested that a few of the top politicians taking a pay cut could clear a significant amount of the national debt! That's the thing that bothers me (and many others) the most: the fact that politicians expect huge pay rises while cutting things for those who can least afford to have them cut, which, in turn, leads to more and more people being stretched even further and, as you say, find those in the middle being burdened.
• United Kingdom
22 Feb 13
I agree with your first point there. I wasn't sure if what had said was clear as to what I meant. As for your second point, I agree with that too. Apparently some politician (I don't know which one) said that a single person could easily live on £70 per week (I think that was the amount, it may have been less) after he'd eaten a £40 breakfast!
@p1kef1sh (45681)
21 Feb 13
I think that irrespective of the value of your house home is home and you ought not to be forced to leave it just because a government wants to raise tax. Actually politicians are being squeezed. Squeezed into tight clothes because of all the meals that they are eating at our expense whilst they dream up new ways to make life harder for the rest of us!
1 person likes this
@MsTickle (25180)
• Australia
26 Feb 13
Here in Aus, people who have lived in government homes for years and raised their family, who have all grown and left home, are being forced out. So an elderly person, living in a 3 bedroom home is being re-housed. The ridiculous thing is, people cannot find homes to rent cheaply and these homes that are being taken back are left vacant and are being destroyed by vandals. It's a crime.
@MsTickle (25180)
• Australia
26 Feb 13
Oops! Tagged the wrong discussion. *giggle*
@dawnald (85137)
• Shingle Springs, California
21 Feb 13
This reminds me somewhat of proposition 13. In California in the late 1970's, property values rose rapidly, and property taxes rose with them, to the point that people who had bought houses at 1950's and 1960's prices could not pay their taxes. A proposition was passed to grandfather the taxes so that they would be based on the purchase price rather than the current assessed value. The taxes could not be raised more than a small percentage each year, and would not be reassessed to the current property value unless the property was sold. I think that was a very fair solution. Your deputy prime minister sounds like a cold, hard hearted jerk who has no idea what it is like to be one of the little people. Why should somebody be forced to sell the family home just because they couldn't afford to buy it at today's prices? Ludicrous...
@p1kef1sh (45681)
21 Feb 13
I think that you are being very kind to our Deputy Prime Minister. At the last election no party had an overall majority although the Conservatives were slightly ahead. Both the Conservatives and Labour (socialists) wooed the liberals who eventually went with the Conservatives. Now we have a coalition government which seems incapable of doing anything right. They spend an awful lot of time worrying about relative trivia and not enough time doing the important things like getting people back into meaningful jobs. Issues such as the mansion tax as it is called, simply served to make the government look hardhearted and actually out of touch with the electorate. What I want to know is why it is that in a government which claims to want to reduce public spending; why are they hellbent on increasing taxes?
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85137)
• Shingle Springs, California
21 Feb 13
I wonder how reducing spending is going to create jobs.
@robspeakman (1700)
21 Feb 13
The £2million Mansion Tax will only come in when Labour form a coalition with the liberals if they win the next election. What does concern me the most is the plan to bring in a possession tax or jewellery tax by this future coalition. The plan is to allow tax inspectors to go into your home to find any heirlooms that have been passed down to you and tax you at capital gains tax rate. Don't forget that Labour is the party of the working man... ....And people still vote for them
@p1kef1sh (45681)
21 Feb 13
I'd not vote Labour in its present guise. In fact I find all the parties identical. Tell us what they think we want on hear and then do what they like once in power. What I don't understand is that the coalition came in saying that they were going to cut public spending, have made thousands redundant, but seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for more tax.
21 Feb 13
Also forgot to add that the Mansion tax will not only be covering Mansions but the buy to let market. There is a belief that the landlord is rich - On paper he is, in reality he isn't. After paying the mortgage on his collection of properties and paying for maintenance on his houses, his profits will small change. Profits will come when the mortgages are paid off and house prices have increased on what he paid. This is why more and more people are buying property as investments - The profits will come in future when the reach retiremnet age. Any future Mansion tax will stifle this market and in effect affect future growth
@subhojit10 (7375)
• India
21 Feb 13
Thanks a ton for sharing this discussion. Well i do not know how UK Government is doing in your country but still i am expecting that the Govt would work effectively for its citizens. i think the economic slowdown has come hard for most of the countries and i hope this will improve in the coming days. What say?
@p1kef1sh (45681)
21 Feb 13
You can wish. Most governments work for themselves!