Poor Ed... even Myleene is attacking him.

RideOnTime

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/myleene-klass-ed-miliband-mansion-tax

RideOnTime

Sorry that picture came out bigger than anticipated.

city_boy

RideOnTime wrote:

Sorry that picture came out bigger than anticipated.

Bet that's not the only thing

pblakeney

City Boy wrote:

RideOnTime wrote:

Sorry that picture came out bigger than anticipated.

Bet that's not the only thing

But not as big as you hoped.

jimmythecuckoo

Klassy.

RideOnTime

The picture seems to have obscured the discussion about tax distribution... oh well...

MountainMonster

How has she become famous, or rich?

My guess is she has a property in that bracket, and will be hit by the tax, and is using this as her tactic to save her pocket.

Anyways, houses over £500,000 are ridiculous anyways.

tangled_metal

Just sold her house she had with her recent ex fir £1.8m apparently so if she'd still kept it the mansion in tax wouldn't apply unless house price rises tip it over the threshold.

She made little Ed look a bit lost I believe. He's supposed to be a highly briefed, political heavy weight. How on earth did he get humiliated like that?

Mind you, Myleen Klasse is highly educated with degrees and even a Ph.D to her name apparently. She's no pop airhead and IIRC has appeared on current affairs shows before. Not just the loose women show but proper ones like question time I think.
Did you read what the other guy said, you know the serious academic I think? He said he would be royally screwed!

bianchimoon

Tangled Metal wrote:

Just sold her house she had with her recent ex fir £1.8m apparently so if she'd still kept it the mansion in tax wouldn't apply unless house price rises tip it over the threshold.

She made little Ed look a bit lost I believe. He's supposed to be a highly briefed, political heavy weight. How on earth did he get humiliated like that?

Mind you, Myleen Klasse is highly educated with degrees and even a Ph.D to her name apparently. She's no pop airhead and IIRC has appeared on current affairs shows before. Not just the loose women show but proper ones like question time I think.
Did you read what the other guy said, you know the serious academic I think? He said he would be royally screwed!

Just watched the relevant piece, don't think ed was humiliated, seemed to be 3 against one and not a representative panel, he was always going to be up against it. Seems to be a London South/east/sandbanks issue

secretsam

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did you read what the other guy said, you know the serious academic I think? He said he would be royally screwed!

What, by Myleene?

Frankly, that would not be a hardship

veronese68

MountainMonster wrote:

Anyways, houses over £500,000 are ridiculous anyways.

:shock: The small Victorian 2 bed semi next door to me in need of complete renovation just sold for more than that. On the open day for viewings it was an absolute bunfight, often 2 lots of people in there viewing at the same time. It went to sealed bids. Property prices are utterly ridiculous.

rick_chasey

MountainMonster wrote:

How has she become famous, or rich?

My guess is she has a property in that bracket, and will be hit by the tax, and is using this as her tactic to save her pocket.

Anyways, houses over £500,000 are ridiculous anyways.

The one bed I currently rent is worth more than that.

random man

You can buy a huuuuuge house for £2m in Notts, London's a different planet to the rest of the UK.

arran77

RideOnTime wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/myleene-klass-ed-miliband-mansion-tax

She's a bit skinny looking in that picture, I reckon she needs a good bit of meat in her diet.

ballysmate

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... n-tax.html

Labour candidates suggest successful people emigrate if they don't like their tax proposals.
No change there then.

As big Nige says, where is the media furore at the suggestion that people who don't agree with a policy should leave the country. I'm sure the press would be all over a Bnp, sorry UKIP candidate.

tangled_metal

SecretSam wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did you read what the other guy said, you know the serious academic I think? He said he would be royally screwed!

What, by Myleene?

Frankly, that would not be a hardship

Now the tabloids would want that story, Klass royally screwed. Which Royal would it be? Harry is a good bet but imagine if it was another major royal? Say a brother got caught in the act!!!!

Got it wrong, it was the former Ambassador to USA that said that comment not an academic. Seems they get paid a lot too. Anyone fancy a job in the diplomatic service?

bdu98252

Ah the good old Left wing lets tax the rich out look goes a bit like this. See a big house tax it. See an expensive car tax it. See an expensive boat tax it. Lets face it the richest 2500 people paying as much in tax as the poorest 8million in the country. They should obviously pay more. The only problem for Labour is they have no track record of wisely spending others money.

How many people want to give me a tenner and I will give you a service or product back that will probably be of significantly less than you paid me in the first place.

DeVlaeminck

So what would you rather - a system where the wealth continues to polarise in the hands of the few while many work long hours but still have to make do with substandard health and education or make hard choices about whether they can afford a decent holiday this year? Yes some people do very well out of our society why shouldn't they put back a disproportionate amount?

The disgrace is that wealth is distributed in such a way that the rich have enough money to avoid tax and still end p paying that much - not that they are asked to pay it.

ugo.santalucia

The problem with Ed Milliband is that he looks a bit like Tom Hanks in "Big" and therefore he is not a credible leader. His brother, who was a very credible leader, has been fucxed by the unions and thank to that we'll get another 5 years of some form of Tory coalition... which is not the end of the world, many things are better than they were in 2010, some are worse... I think Osborne is not a bad chancellor TBH... better than Balls will ever be

florerider

ugo.santalucia wrote:

... better than Balls will ever be

not exactly a ringing endorsement then

mamba80

bdu98252 wrote:

Ah the good old Left wing lets tax the rich out look goes a bit like this. See a big house tax it. See an expensive car tax it. See an expensive boat tax it. Lets face it the richest 2500 people paying as much in tax as the poorest 8million in the country. They should obviously pay more. The only problem for Labour is they have no track record of wisely spending others money.

How many people want to give me a tenner and I will give you a service or product back that will probably be of significantly less than you paid me in the first place.

You can the toss about whether property should be taxed at all but if it is, then the council tax banding needs to be extended in I, J,K and L or beyond, this way little granny Muggins who has lived in Forest hill for 85 years can apply for council tax benefit should she not be able to afford her new banding, exactly as a divorced woman living in the family home might have too.

I found it rather sad that the Tories have gone to court to defend the removal of housing benefit from a woman with a panic room to protect her from a violent ex but it ok not to tax someone with an expensive house.

DeVlaeminck

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The problem with Ed Milliband is that he looks a bit like Tom Hanks in "Big" and therefore he is not a credible leader. His brother, who was a very credible leader, has been fucxed by the unions and thank to that we'll get another 5 years of some form of Tory coalition... which is not the end of the world, many things are better than they were in 2010, some are worse... I think Osborne is not a bad chancellor TBH... better than Balls will ever be

Hmm, so it's not ok to buy a set of factory built wheels on looks but a fair way to judge who governs the country ?

I suspect Miliband's and Labour's popularity will pick up a little and our next govt will be a labour led coalition.

mamba80

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The problem with Ed Milliband is that he looks a bit like Tom Hanks in "Big" ... I think Osborne is not a bad chancellor TBH... better than Balls will ever be

Any credibility you ever had, is gone with those statements

ddraver

care to elaborate instead of just muck slinging mamba?

Monkeypump

DeVlaeminck wrote:

So what would you rather - a system where the wealth continues to polarise in the hands of the few while many work long hours but still have to make do with substandard health and education or make hard choices about whether they can afford a decent holiday this year? Yes some people do very well out of our society why shouldn't they put back a disproportionate amount?

The disgrace is that wealth is distributed in such a way that the rich have enough money to avoid tax and still end p paying that much - not that they are asked to pay it.

Well, why should they?

DeVlaeminck

Because they do well out of "society" - they are not islands producing this wealth independent of the efforts of others. At some point in time they needed teachers to educate them, medical staff to tend them, police to keep them safe, water engineers to provide fresh water etc.

I am starting from the premise that fairness and morality come into it - some may not - they may see it as a case of get what you can for yourself from the society that exists. That's what gangsters, thieves and con men do too.

pliptrot

The fact that the richest 2500 pay more tax than the poorest 8m only serves to illustrate how badly the poorest 8m (and more) are paid. There are lots of comments here suggesting that the current Government is more dependable withe the economy: currently borrowing is increasing and productivity is stagnant, suggesting that the growth in the economy is based on debt. Every commitment made on reducing the deficit has been missed. It is difficult to see how the economy could be managed worse, frankly. It is unarguable that the economic policies of this Government have taken from the poor and given to the rich. If you accept the importance of and the requirement for progressive taxation, it is difficult to argue against a significant reform of property tax. Rich folk living in expensive houses and genteel poverty have a choice. The poor don't.

mamba80

ddraver wrote:

care to elaborate instead of just muck slinging mamba?

judging a man on his looks and Osbourne "not a bad" chancellor.... its not muck slinging, whatever that is? perhaps if you read my earlier comment it would be clear to you why I don't have any regard for Osbourne and in particular his policies, which are basically for the wealthy to become even wealthier.
Coming from Cornwall, I would have thought you would see this?

ugo.santalucia

mamba80 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

care to elaborate instead of just muck slinging mamba?

judging a man on his looks and Osbourne "not a bad" chancellor.... its not muck slinging, whatever that is? perhaps if you read my earlier comment it would be clear to you why I don't have any regard for Osbourne and in particular his policies, which are basically for the wealthy to become even wealthier.

During the 15 years of labour the rich became much richer too and society became unequal like one century before... it's just the way capitalism works... labour or Tory is irrelevant

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

Ah the good old Left wing lets tax the rich out look goes a bit like this. See a big house tax it. See an expensive car tax it. See an expensive boat tax it. Lets face it the richest 2500 people paying as much in tax as the poorest 8million in the country. They should obviously pay more. The only problem for Labour is they have no track record of wisely spending others money.

How many people want to give me a tenner and I will give you a service or product back that will probably be of significantly less than you paid me in the first place.

You can the toss about whether property should be taxed at all but if it is, then the council tax banding needs to be extended in I, J,K and L or beyond, this way little granny Muggins who has lived in Forest hill for 85 years can apply for council tax benefit should she not be able to afford her new banding, exactly as a divorced woman living in the family home might have too.

I found it rather sad that the Tories have gone to court to defend the removal of housing benefit from a woman with a panic room to protect her from a violent ex but it ok not to tax someone with an expensive house.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... edroom-tax

See the last paragraph.

Provision was made by the government to cater for such circumstances. In this case, it would appear that it was the local authority that was refusing to assist this lady.

MountainMonster

Veronese68 wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

Anyways, houses over £500,000 are ridiculous anyways.

:shock: The small Victorian 2 bed semi next door to me in need of complete renovation just sold for more than that. On the open day for viewings it was an absolute bunfight, often 2 lots of people in there viewing at the same time. It went to sealed bids. Property prices are utterly ridiculous.

Yeah, I meant the prices are ridiculous, not owning one. I, as a renter now, struggle to even get on the ladder in a 250k property, let alone £500k.

I understand why the housing system is the way it is now, especially when it comes to council tax, but jesus, they screw renters here. I've got no chance of getting a mortgage because i'm being bent over backwards on rent, and have no chance to save towards a deposit. This is about the only downside I've got with the UK.