"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

snip

Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a second house
(which I regard as the ultimate frivoulous activity), they can
certainly afford to be screwed for every penny by the tax man.


Buying a second home can be a sensible option. My mother in law is 79. She
was paying £250 per month in rent. We purchased it for £18,000 (after the
discount as she lived there for years) with a mortgage of £90 per month.
She
now lives rent free and we get a second home (towards our retirement
income)
with a current value of £100,000.

If she was to die soon, we would have 2 homes and we may not sell the
second - does that make us 'rich kids' and should it make us a target for
massive tax?

You could get around a second home tax if the home was owned in your mothers
name. And its far too little to be elegible for inherentence tax when she
dies, so what would be wrong with that?

In 1993, I was an unemployed taxi driver and my wife was a dinner lady. I
am
now a software engineer and she is a teacher. We both went back to college
and university for 5 years. During that time our sons didn't know what a
holiday was and we lived out of jumble sales. I was receiving £120 per
week
in benefits and had to take a cut in that amount when I started uni.

You want to clobber 'rich kids' in an effort to ease congestion on the
roads - what about incentive to get people better off? We lived on £1500 a
year then and £55,000 a year now, but that was done through sheer hard
work.
Take your average 'I won't come off benifits until I earn £200 per week'
moron - how are they going to deal with your clobber the rich kids
attitude?

I don't know

--
MrBitsy