B1440 – Finance Bill 2018 (Second Reading)Watch
Who determines how much a house is valued at? What will you do if estate agencies gang up to undervalue houses on purpose to protect their wealth clients?
At the moment, wealth individuals can own two houses and choose which is their legal address (it's the principle MPs used in the expenses scandal). A wealth person could buy a million pound mansion and a semi-detached. They make the semi-detached their legal address so in the eyes of the law 'no body is in employment' in the manision. They avoid the tax.
Because nothing is defined, the tax is incurred by everything. Let's take Apple's planned new UK headquarters. The cost of the property is at least £10bn. The headquarters don't take up the whole building but nothing about area used is included in the bill. I am simply taking the literal translation as courts would. You are charging Apple an extra £100m a year in tax. They're a big company though so it's fine.
Again, becaus e'property' hasn't exactly been expanded on, you could argue a millionaire in an expensive flat in the Shard pays the tax based on the value of the Shard itself, not the cost of the flat.
Oh, even mroe stupidly, because the exemption on the unemployed only applies to households, the unemployed living in expensive flats still pay the tax.
Moving on to the car taxes. What's to stop someone registering their car with a different address? I.e. it's currently acceptable to put your address down as anything. If I register a car to me and put my address down for the purposes of taxing that car as something else, say I used my grandparent's house, that would be perfectly legal and my household would only have two cars. What a dumb loophole! Even worse, the wealthy - who you so desperatley claim will be targetted by this tax anyone - probably have more than one house so they can just rejig around where their cars are registered to avoid the tax.
How can a bill so dumb pass quality control?
Do the honourable thing and withdraw these section until full bills can be published next term.
- Political Ambassador
Tax abolition has been abolished.
While there is a long held view (primarily from pre-coalition days) that pensioners are the poorest people in society facing a choice between eating and heating that is no longer true with the triple lock ensuring excessive rises in pensions each year. With this in mind, targetted additional funds are no longer needed.
The Clean Air fund is a small peicemeal grant not actually inteded to do all that much. I have abolished it because such things exist to do nothing more than make governments look good to environmentalists. The infrastructure investment coming from this budget will do far more for sustainability than this fund will.
Thanks to a re-evaluation of costing the BBC change will from 2021 have no impact on the Exchequer and such this policy can be considered as being pushed into next term and should no longer be an issue.
Outpatient reforms are abolished for now.
Regarding the pensions aspect this proposal essentially removes the government contribution in the form of tax relief and increases employer contributions to workplace pensions by 2% to more than compensate.
With regards to revoking the local housing cap our plans for housing will indeed be a core part of our additional infrastructure spending.
With regards to fixed odds, people should have the right to spend their money as they wish if it does no harm to wider society. Also as somebody that played on such machines, they were fun.
Not a single issue from the first reading has been resolved, this finance bill still more than doubles the deficit along with having abominable taxes such as the mansion tax, and taxes to squeeze the middle class such as the VED changes that punish people for working.
- Political Ambassador
With regards to your comment the only cost in this finance bill is the increase in the tax threshold which even in itself could not double the deficit. Please review the updating costings spreadsheet.