Have agreed a lot with you in this thread, but not this. It is totally wrong to expect people who have worked hard to pay for their own place to simply move. Emotional attachment for older people is high as well as knowing the area they live.All good points. Which is why it's better for them to downsize. Plenty of over 55 accommodation being built. Or could go for a bungalow.
Newer buildings tend to be more efficient to heat.
That also cost a fucking fortune, again high demand few place , you really should reseach before you post on this subject
Not where I live.Is it possible to buy one for less than the sale price of a two or three bedroom house?
Have agreed a lot with you in this thread, but not this. It is totally wrong to expect people who have worked hard to pay for their own place to simply move. Emotional attachment for older people is high as well as knowing the area they live.
As you get older, change is more difficult to take, and they should be under no pressure at all to move
I'll be hitting 70 in three years and I cannot think of anything worse than feeling obliged to move
I had a 2 bedroom house when I was married. Ex hubby bought me out when I left and we got divorced.Is it possible to buy one for less than the sale price of a two or three bedroom house?
What would you do with the £100k-£125k where people lose their tax free allowance and so are taxed at an effective marginal rate of 60% already?Sorry, missed the bit about the Scottish tax system. I don't have a problem with the rates generally and certain aspects I like but it does seem overly complicated to me.
Personally I would advocate a system that is as simple as possible.A huge loss to the exchequer in terms of tax revenue collection is incorrectly completed tax returns. People either deliberately, or more typically accidentally, filling it in wrong because the rules are too complex.
So I would go for something really simple like a personal allowance of about £20k. (I don't think anyone earning less than that should be paying tax, because life on those incomes is tough enough as it is. That takes millions of people out of the tax system altogether, which I think would be a great thing to do.
Then I'd have probably a 25% basic rate up to earning of around £60k. And then perhaps a 47% rate over that. And that's it.
I'd have to play with the maths to make it add up. But you could play with the maths to make it add up. Anyone earning less than £20k would win, obviously. The break even point would be around £35K with anyone below that better off and anyone above it, worse off but not by much for most people. Someone on £100k would be £2.5k worse off - and could easily afford that. And of course anyone on much more would be paying a lot of their income at 47% not 45%.
.
It did got down. The 50p rate was introduced in April 2010 as reflected in the 2010-11 figures below, from the HMRC. Look what happened.
Now some of the tax in 2009-10 was due to people hurriedly paying themselves more in that year, in order to avoid the 50% in the following year**. So the effect is exaggerated. But look at 2008-09 as well, still much higher (with a max 45% rate) than 2010-11 with the 50%. Even in 2011-12, at 50% it was still bringing in less.
** which kind of proves my point: A lot of wealthy people have flexibility in their earnings and can rearrange their affairs in order to reduce their tax bills, if rates get too penal.
View attachment 132832
Not where I live.
And how do these young coupples afford these large houses?You aren't obliged to move other than by circumstances. Everybody is attached to their home, including renters who have to frequently move and have to work very hard to pay someone else 50% of their take home.
Old people knocking around houses that are too big for them, that they can't afford to heat and need alterations just to get around and into (alterations which they won't neccesarily fund themselves) isn't a good use of a finite amount of housing. Which might be better used to house a young couple starting a family.