Cameron rules out 'mansion tax'

2:16pm Sunday 7th October 2012 in News

Mr Cameron dodged questions about whether the economy was finally recovering from its double dip recession. Mr Cameron dodged questions about whether the economy was finally recovering from its double dip recession.

David Cameron has dismissed Liberal Democrat demands for a "mansion tax" and benefit cuts for wealthy pensioners as part of efforts to tackle the deficit.

But the Prime Minister signalled that the coalition would be targeting the rich with new measures to help balance the books.

Interviewed on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show as the Conservatives kicked off a potentially tricky conference in Birmingham, Mr Cameron dodged questions about whether the economy was finally recovering from its double dip recession.

He also insisted it was "too early to say" whether the Government would miss its key target for public sector debt to be falling by 2015.

"I'm not an economic forecaster so I cannot tell you exactly what is happening in terms of the day-to-day growth, but I can tell you that our economy is rebalancing," he said.

Asked whether the debt target was set to be missed, he replied: "The figures for this year, it is too early to say where they are going to end up."

Mr Cameron said his party would "level" with the public about the need for another £16 billion of spending cuts in 2015-16.

"We have to find these spending reductions and if we want to avoid cuts in things like hospitals and schools, services that we all rely on, we have to look at things like the welfare budget," he said.

The PM insisted he was looking at "working age welfare", and would stand by his pre-election promise to protect universal benefits for pensioners - such as free bus passes and winter fuel payments.

But he said the overall deficit reduction effort would be "fair".

Comments(16)

smith&weston says...
7:45am Mon 8 Oct 12

I read this today 'More than half of households make no contribution to the state as a result of Labour’s decision to increase spending on benefits, a report reveals today.
In a 53.4 per cent of homes, state handouts and services now outweigh their tax payments.
In 2001 - prior to Labour’s debt binge - the figure was less than 44 per cent.
Whats the betting it's the same 53% clamouring for a mansion tax . After all, they need to be kept in the luxury to which they have become accustomed.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
7:00pm Thu 11 Oct 12

I think I also read 80% of scots are net receivers from the state. Good job they are always so gracious to us english.

I am pleased Dave is not going to introduce a mansion tax as like all non labour voters I live in a 15 bedroom mansion in 50 acres of grounds. I wear my top hat every day and am wicked to my workers which I refer to as plebs.

Just thought it would save time for PM and Chasmcn our resident class warriors. See how I look after you guys you can go about your business now.

Report this post »

chasmcn says...
11:55pm Thu 11 Oct 12

smith&weston wrote:
I read this today 'More than half of households make no contribution to the state as a result of Labour’s decision to increase spending on benefits, a report reveals today.
In a 53.4 per cent of homes, state handouts and services now outweigh their tax payments.
In 2001 - prior to Labour’s debt binge - the figure was less than 44 per cent.
Whats the betting it's the same 53% clamouring for a mansion tax . After all, they need to be kept in the luxury to which they have become accustomed.
Can you please tell me who the Center for Policy Studies are ? i guessed this is in the daily mail ,if this is true i think it proves that all the wealth in the country is held by the top 1% that over 55% of the population their wages are so poor that now need benefits to get by .

I will help you by telling you who the Center for Policy Studies are ,it is a right wing think tank founded in 1974 by Sir Kieth Joseph and Margaret Thatcher enough said right wing propaganda from a Fascist supporting news paper .

Report this post »

chasmcn says...
12:17am Fri 12 Oct 12

Makes you wonder how labour lost the election if it was buying these votes by giving over 50% of the population benefits .

Report this post »

pitbullboxing says...
8:55am Fri 12 Oct 12

I almost hope Labour win the next election just to stop the stupid slogan posters and never ending whining.

Report this post »

pitbullboxing says...
8:56am Fri 12 Oct 12

Why can I ask did Labour not tax the rich to death when they were in power? They should be called the retrospective hindsight hypocrite party.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:42am Fri 12 Oct 12

The rich got away with murder with tax avoidance when Labour was in power with offshore schemes etc now all closed since they have gone. The top rate of tax was 40% for all but the last month they were in power. Now their plan is to chant "one nation" at us verbatim while having nothing of substance at all to say on anything. Where they to get in power they would simply promise everything and borrow and borrow adding to the ruinous debt they left. Interest rates and inflation would rip and we would end up like Greece or Spain. But there are people out there daft enough to fall for the tale of the magic wand economics of Ed Balls plus the labour client state in welfare and the unionised public sector who have been deliberately constructed as gerrymandered voters by Labour funded by the taxpayer. I think after the last round of party conferences we saw clear water between the parties. The Tories although they have their faults are at least roughly on the right lines. Lib Dems I think will recover a lot of their voters who are protesting to Labour at the mid polls but will return when faced with Balls. Labour is a sham and has clearly learnt nothing from their last stint the “one nation” baloney chant will wear off before this year is out. I expect another coalition or a small Tory majority not because Cameron is good but because anyone with sense will see the recklessness of allowing Ball’s and the unions to let rip.

Report this post »

keepitreel says...
8:08am Sat 13 Oct 12

the problem is what do you define as a mansion?,the stately type home with land and deer running free or a 3-4 four bed detached house bought in the 50's for a few thousand and now worth over half a million (plenty in this town),nearly all will now be dept free so why not tax these people higher as they have assets they could liquidate? or are the working class( seems it is only labour voters who still use the class divide) exempt from paying additional taxes on the mansions they live in.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
11:25am Sat 13 Oct 12

Keepitreel fantastic idea you just need to work a little on your spelling. – But why draw the line at an arbitrary £500k why not tax all home owners after all they have assets they can liquidate right? Although where they will live we need to think about. Also why stop at houses? a house is only a possession albeit an expensive one. The government could set a minimum level for a car (Reliant Robin), grocery bills (Aldi), clothes (Primark) and the excess should be taxed as you are living the high life beyond necessary means. For accommodation you should be allowed a one bedroom flat anything above that should be taxed at 100% because you are living to excess as a rich person. The money could be used to fund valuable benefits for those unable to work for health or ideological reasons after all super strength lager does not come cheap these days. The only exception should be Labour MP’s who need the larger accommodation and sustenance to manage the great leap forward for the people.

Report this post »

keepitreel says...
2:01pm Sat 13 Oct 12

you missed my point sankey,it seems that when you mention a mansion people automatically think of some rich banker type living a life of luxury at the expense of the poor working class's,my point is there are a lot of people living in very expensive properties that cost nothing in today's terms and have 2 or 3 spare rooms,IF these are claiming benefit and house allowance etc what is wrong in either taxing them for the assets or asking them to move /sell and thus allowing them to come off the benefits with the money they acquire,why should i pay more tax to let this type of person live in their mansion?

Report this post »

Sankey says...
5:12pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Note sure I understand are you saying if you have a spare bedroom you don't sleep in you should be taxed more? If someone is in a £500k house claiming housing benefit then I totally agree with you they should move as they cannot afford that house. And I do agree there are a lot in that position middle class working professionals who are claiming benefits. But not if they own the house and are not claiming benefit. However I think that is what you were saying? Now I live in Earlestown but I would much prefer to live in Prestbury. The reason I don’t is because I can’t afford it. When the coalition limited housing benefit to £26k per year (A heck of a lot of money that in annual rent) then there were many on the political left who described it as ethnic cleansing because people would have to move out of areas like Kensington in London because the state would no longer pay £100k plus annual rents for them. Abu Hamzar whom I am sure you will agree has made a fantastic contribution to this country lives in a £1m house in London paid for by you and me. In my opinion you get a house paid for by taxpayers then it should be modest and if you have loads of sprogs you cannot expect bigger and better accommodation while you sit on your backside and lets others who go out to work pay for it. I can hear the cry’s of the vulnerable will suffer, rubbish ! the vulnerable are those trying to fend for themselves with food and gas prices ramping up without now suffering higher taxes to pay for those who choose to sponge off their neighbours.

Report this post »

smith&weston says...
8:13pm Sat 13 Oct 12

keepitreal seems to be suggesting that as your house increases in value,even if it's through no direct action by yourself, you should stump up some extra tax or bail out of it to something less valuable. What happens if some old oil painting you bought at the car boot sale turns out to be worth half a million.? Should you be told to stump up some extra tax pronto or get it sold ?
I repeat my favourite observation once again... Bloke standing at a bus stop in the USA see's a Cadilac go past and says ' one day, I'm going to own one of those ". Mean while, bloke standing at a bust stop in Britain see's a Rolls Royce go past and says ' hope you crash and die you rich git ".

Report this post »

keepitreel says...
10:21pm Sat 13 Oct 12

sankey and s&w you both answered my point,why should someone from any class be expected to pay more for something that has increased by accident,same as someone who had the nerve to start a business work every hour they could gave up on holidays and some finer things to make the business a success employ people,then buy a nice property only to be told by dead beats and leaches he is a scourge to society and should be squeezes dry to pay for their scumbag lifestyle.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:30pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Well we agree I think.

Report this post »

chasmcn says...
12:33am Sun 14 Oct 12

Only the plebs pay council tax as the rich have very clever accounts that mismerise the inland revenue who set the council tax and local councils that have to collect it. They can not find out who owns the property as they are channeled thou tax havens of the Caymen Islands,Liechtenstei
n Liberia British Virgin Islands and Guernsey who protect the residents of these properties as they are registered in company names another tax fiddle by the rich protected by their rich friends in govt .

Over 750mill a year is lost to the state by companies hiding in tax havens and not paying their council tax .Another tax fiddle to buy these expensive property's instead of buying the building you buy the company that owns the building in which then you then avoid the stamp duty which is liable on the property

dont forget "we are all in this together"

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:52am Sun 14 Oct 12

I thought the coalition had stopped all those scams from the Labour govt era Chasmcn especially the stamp duty. No one was more soft on the rich avoiding tax than Labour 97 to 10.

And if we are all in this together how about the millions on the cash in hand economy which is not aviodance but evasion a criminal offence.

You never hear this mentioned by politicians or lefties.

This sum is estimated in the hundreds of billions but is unquantifiable by the nature of it. Just thing of all the money we could give to spongers if we had that Chas.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree