On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
'When King Charles made public his accounts this week, he surreptitiously slipped into the document a quite significant change.
In a few amended lines in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report, the duties of the monarchy have been covertly changed. The King’s title as “Defender of the Faith” has been replaced by “Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.”
Makes it sound like he's got a job as a church warden.
As well as being an ungainly phrase, it's a climbdown from his princely days. Didn't he say once he wanted to change it to "defender of faiths" or "defender of faith"?
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
You asked me a serious question and I gave you a serious answer. Nobody's trying to punish you for being successful.
Lots of people on this thread are - indeed, someone even suggested bringing in controls on personal possessions exported. Smacks of East Germany!
But to satisfy my curiosity, I am right, aren't I. A non-trivial but modest annual tax on your wealth would not, assuming you knew about it back then, have led you to become an HR manager rather an antiques dealer, would it?
Sadly I suspect I'd have gone to the bar. It was always my intention until it became clear that I might be able to set up a business from what had previously been my hobby.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
But also because the entire sector hasn't had a cost increase to pass on. One landlord couldn't do it on his own - thousands acting together could.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
If you eliminate the incentive to create and run a business you don’t have employees and products for customers.
You have state control of the means of production.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
If you eliminate the incentive to create and run a business you don’t have employees and products for customers.
You have state control of the means of production.
If you have state control of means of production history conclusively proves you create inefficiency, a lack of innovation, corruption and we are all poorer.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.
Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns
Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus
Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.
Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.
Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.
The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.
Why does Russia think that invading Poland would make the West less likely to support Ukraine?
Good question. It seems an odd story.
What was the Confederacy attacking Fort Sumter a good idea?
Why was Paraguay going to war with the rest of South America, in 1870 a good idea?
Why was attacking the Falkland in 1982 a good idea?
Why was The US attacking Iran in 2026 a good idea?
How many countries that *started* a war, won them?
This is Vladimir “Full Tonto” Putin, after all.
True. War of choice is inherently irrational in the grand scheme of things. It's usually some raddled old bloke trying to satisfy his urges. Putin and Trump are both doing that in their different ways.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
But also because the entire sector hasn't had a cost increase to pass on. One landlord couldn't do it on his own - thousands acting together could.
Love to know how that would work with the new rental rules including tribunals to determine fair rents..
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
But also because the entire sector hasn't had a cost increase to pass on. One landlord couldn't do it on his own - thousands acting together could.
Nevertheless, the empirical evidence (and there's lots) doesn't support your contention.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
How does fewer rental properties create higher rents? It's possible (heck likely) that as a house is sold reducing supply by 1, it's bought by a former renter so reducing demand by one.
Otherwise we are back to the old argument that as a landlord sells up the house magically disappears into thin air.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
But also because the entire sector hasn't had a cost increase to pass on. One landlord couldn't do it on his own - thousands acting together could.
Love to know how that would work with the new rental rules including tribunals to determine fair rents..
"My costs have gone up by X therefore I should raise the rent by X" would seem to be a likely argument to be made.
Not feeling very confident about England v SA. Quite a coincidence to have England Rugby and Football playing high altitude matches on the same weekend.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
But also because the entire sector hasn't had a cost increase to pass on. One landlord couldn't do it on his own - thousands acting together could.
Nevertheless, the empirical evidence (and there's lots) doesn't support your contention.
On one hand, everyone knows Newton's Laws of Motion, and why Aristotle was wrong.
But it doesn't take much to discombobulate even very trained physicists into thinking about problems in an Aristotlean way. As someone whose professional identity is all about making people think about the physical world the right way, that's pretty dispiriting.
I wonder if there's something similar going on here, except with economics. Cognitiviely, we all know that the price of anything is what the seller and buyer agree on. Costs and whatnot enter the calculation, but only very weakly. That's why microscale landlordism is seen as money for old rope, even when it isn't. But it doesn't take much for people to revert to the more naive model of "selling price = cost + fair profit margin".
I suspect there are a load of other things, that we all know aren't the case, but act as if they are.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
I’m not sure that “I got to stay in the house, but I also had to keep paying his half of the mortgage” is something that would generate sympathy among, for example, divorced men.
Not feeling very confident about England v SA. Quite a coincidence to have England Rugby and Football playing high altitude matches on the same weekend.
Marcus Smith in at full back...hhhmmm.
Cricket is also going well....1/2...good job they bad deep.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
How does fewer rental properties create higher rents? It's possible (heck likely) that as a house is sold reducing supply by 1, it's bought by a former renter so reducing demand by one.
Otherwise we are back to the old argument that as a landlord sells up the house magically disappears into thin air.
You would be right if we had a stable population but we don’t the population is growing and there is move to smaller household sizes and we aren’t building enough homes. That’s why rents have been increasing over recent years. Assuming people rent because they can’t buy the fact their landlord sells doesn’t mean they can now buy.
I was at the Silverstone museum in early June. Well worth a visit. There are some great quotes on the walls. One of them is from David Coulthard. He said:
"There are very few corners in the world like Copse. Silverstone has 4 of them." It really is a great driving circuit.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
I know this is often quoted as an issue but I dispute that:
1. If it were true how would IHT ever net anything? 2. A wealth tax will still mop up property wealth - those big country estates (of which there are a huge number) aren't going anywhere. 3. Why shouldn't British Citizens be subject to British taxes (net of any local taxes they pay where they reside) no matter where they live? If you want the rights and privileges of British Citizenship you should pay British taxes imo.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
Selling the property does not destroy it, as far as I'm aware.
What the land value tax does discourage is leaving properties empty, or land undeveloped.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
This is what pushed us into marriage after 21 years.
Not being considered next of kin wasn't a great position to be in.
I'm glad to see that romance isn't dead.
Most weddings appear to be predominantly a logistical nightmare for the stresed-out couple, with romance coming a distant second.
Luckily my parents in law organised our wedding, so it wasn't stressful for me at all. I just got to turn up, eat a lot of delicious food and gaze at my wife to be, who looked extremely lovely.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
Should have read rental market.
Which lowers the price of properties for sale, yes? Which means that the rent needed to be achieved to reach breakeven (after the new tax) also drops.
I'm having trouble logging on to vf.politicalbetting.com on my tablet. Cloudflare doesn't believe I am human (shutupshutupshutup) and I'm stuck in a "verify you are human" loop.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
Should have read rental market.
Yep, fewer properties on the rental market, more on the homeowner market. What's not to like?
Allowing those on low-income to receive UC support for mortgage payments in a controlled way, instead of for rent, would be a good move too.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
Should have read rental market.
Yep, fewer properties on the rental market, more on the homeowner market. What's not to like?
Allowing those on low-income to receive UC support for mortgage payments in a controlled way, instead of for rent, would be a good move too.
As would (my hobby horse) requiring lenders to accept a history of paying monthly rent of X as evidence of ability to make mortgage payments of some large fraction of X.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
Should have read rental market.
Which lowers the price of properties for sale, yes? Which means that the rent needed to be achieved to reach breakeven (after the new tax) also drops.
At the margin yes of course, but if there’s a massive disparity between what you can afford to rent and what you can afford to buy, then all you see is rents going up because of a lack of supply.
Apartments going down in price from $1m to $900k means nothing to you in terms of buying one, if the bank won’t lend you the money to buy it.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
Should have read rental market.
Apologies for suggesting you might be a Bot a few days ago - I think I got that one wrong ;-)
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
Should have read rental market.
Yep, fewer properties on the rental market, more on the homeowner market. What's not to like?
Allowing those on low-income to receive UC support for mortgage payments in a controlled way, instead of for rent, would be a good move too.
So capital coming out of the housing market meaning less building resulting in fewer homes when the need for more homes is accelerating and more homeless. Really smart.
A new national poll reveals a striking paradox in public sentiment ahead of America's 250th anniversary: a disconnect between Americans' strong patriotic pride and their lack of civic knowledge.
According to a survey from the libertarian Cato Institute think tank of more than 2,000 U.S. adults conducted in late June, 86% of respondents said they are grateful to be American and 70% believe the nation's founding principles remain relevant.
However, nearly half of Americans (46%) don't know that America's 250th anniversary commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.
That’s what happens when history and civics curricula are reduced to slavery and racism and AmericaBad, as opposed to continuing to advocate for those founding principles.
Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
Try this one. "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"
No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
"Creationism" as a pseudo-science is a long way from anything said in Genesis. Indeed, Creationism, by its nature, goes out of its way to not be explicitly Christian. One might study the Genesis accounts of creation in an RS lesson, but Creationism should be left to American Studies, not something done until university.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
But also because the entire sector hasn't had a cost increase to pass on. One landlord couldn't do it on his own - thousands acting together could.
Nevertheless, the empirical evidence (and there's lots) doesn't support your contention.
On one hand, everyone knows Newton's Laws of Motion, and why Aristotle was wrong.
But it doesn't take much to discombobulate even very trained physicists into thinking about problems in an Aristotlean way. As someone whose professional identity is all about making people think about the physical world the right way, that's pretty dispiriting.
I wonder if there's something similar going on here, except with economics. Cognitiviely, we all know that the price of anything is what the seller and buyer agree on. Costs and whatnot enter the calculation, but only very weakly. That's why microscale landlordism is seen as money for old rope, even when it isn't. But it doesn't take much for people to revert to the more naive model of "selling price = cost + fair profit margin".
I suspect there are a load of other things, that we all know aren't the case, but act as if they are.
If there's a liquid market the supply demand force on the asset is easily seen and you can 100% say the price is the price, that is what it's worth, end of story. If there is no liquid market it gets more difficult and you have to start guessing or applying formulas.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
But also because the entire sector hasn't had a cost increase to pass on. One landlord couldn't do it on his own - thousands acting together could.
Love to know how that would work with the new rental rules including tribunals to determine fair rents..
"My costs have gone up by X therefore I should raise the rent by X" would seem to be a likely argument to be made.
There is already a tribunal for rents and if you read their decisions, that won't wash. It's about comparative rents in the area. You can see past decisions here.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
But also because the entire sector hasn't had a cost increase to pass on. One landlord couldn't do it on his own - thousands acting together could.
Love to know how that would work with the new rental rules including tribunals to determine fair rents..
"My costs have gone up by X therefore I should raise the rent by X" would seem to be a likely argument to be made.
There is already a tribunal for rents and if you read their decisions, that won't wash. It's about comparative rents in the area. You can see past decisions here.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
How does fewer rental properties create higher rents? It's possible (heck likely) that as a house is sold reducing supply by 1, it's bought by a former renter so reducing demand by one.
Otherwise we are back to the old argument that as a landlord sells up the house magically disappears into thin air.
You would be right if we had a stable population but we don’t the population is growing and there is move to smaller household sizes and we aren’t building enough homes. That’s why rents have been increasing over recent years. Assuming people rent because they can’t buy the fact their landlord sells doesn’t mean they can now buy.
There is that trend but there is also the effect of the s21 No-fault evictions which created churn in the market and an artificially high level of renters seeking properties. The new rules give renters almost a lifetime's tenancy so less churn. In fact the rules reward good tenants and good landlords as it gives one certainty of accommodation (and some certainty of cost). And it gives landlords a certainty of stable income.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
Errrr...
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
A logical landlord would sell rather than leave empty thus leaving fewer properties on the market.
Should have read rental market.
Yep, fewer properties on the rental market, more on the homeowner market. What's not to like?
Allowing those on low-income to receive UC support for mortgage payments in a controlled way, instead of for rent, would be a good move too.
There is already support UC support for mortgage payments* but it comes in the form of a second repayable mortgage.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
How does fewer rental properties create higher rents? It's possible (heck likely) that as a house is sold reducing supply by 1, it's bought by a former renter so reducing demand by one.
Otherwise we are back to the old argument that as a landlord sells up the house magically disappears into thin air.
You would be right if we had a stable population but we don’t the population is growing and there is move to smaller household sizes and we aren’t building enough homes. That’s why rents have been increasing over recent years. Assuming people rent because they can’t buy the fact their landlord sells doesn’t mean they can now buy.
There is that trend but there is also the effect of the s21 No-fault evictions which created churn in the market and an artificially high level of renters seeking properties. The new rules give renters almost a lifetime's tenancy so less churn. In fact the rules reward good tenants and good landlords as it gives one certainty of accommodation (and some certainty of cost). And it gives landlords a certainty of stable income.
Not quite lifetime tenancy landlords can evict if selling, occupying the property or bad behavior by the tenant.
On the topic of taxing wealth or earnings there are two very different issues at play.
Most wealth can't be taxed as it can just be taken out of the country. Taxing that is futile.
The argument why tax wealth people have worked for is valid, but even more valid for incomes. Incomes people have worked for too.
Increasing taxes on potentially unearned wealth, that can't be transfered out of the country, with a commensurate reduction in taxing earned incomes would be both economically and philosophically justifiable.
What wealth can't be transferred out of the country? We come back to land ...
Which -as I'm sure you're alluding to- is the argument for taxing land. It's much harder to hide land than other assets, and if you tax the land directly you also avoid the situation where non-UK taxpayers own land, and benefit from the ownership of land, without paying tax.
Unless, of course, they rent the land out, in which case the tax is effectively paid by the tenants.
I don't think that's true: the cost of renting the land is set by supply and demand. A tax on the ultimate owner doesn't affect that.
Surely if rented property attracts, say, £1200 pa tax, landlords are all going to put their rents up by £100pcm and the tenants are going to be stuck with it.
That's not really how it works in the real world. Let me give you a simplified example.
Let's say there is some farm land, used for growing corn. The value of that farm land is set by how much money you can make by growing corn. If the landlord attempts to raise the rent, the tenant farmer simply won't rent it, because they cannot make enough money from farming to cover the rent.
And that's true -in slightly more complex ways- across the whole market. Prices are set by supply (of buildings, farmland. etc.) and demand (number of people needing housing, etc). The imposition of a tax does not affect supply and demand.
Yeah, but people who need to rent somewhere to live need to rent somewhere to live.
That's right: demand is unaffected by the tax on landlords.
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Yes but taxes increase the cost to the landlord. Some of whom leave the market , the supply curve moves and we have fewer rental properties and higher rents.
How does fewer rental properties create higher rents? It's possible (heck likely) that as a house is sold reducing supply by 1, it's bought by a former renter so reducing demand by one.
Otherwise we are back to the old argument that as a landlord sells up the house magically disappears into thin air.
You would be right if we had a stable population but we don’t the population is growing and there is move to smaller household sizes and we aren’t building enough homes. That’s why rents have been increasing over recent years. Assuming people rent because they can’t buy the fact their landlord sells doesn’t mean they can now buy.
There is that trend but there is also the effect of the s21 No-fault evictions which created churn in the market and an artificially high level of renters seeking properties. The new rules give renters almost a lifetime's tenancy so less churn. In fact the rules reward good tenants and good landlords as it gives one certainty of accommodation (and some certainty of cost). And it gives landlords a certainty of stable income.
Not quite lifetime tenancy landlords can evict if selling, occupying the property or bad behavior by the tenant.
I did say 'almost' and I did say 'good tenants'. If you get a bad 'un you have a real problem now but social landlords* will likely end up with them.
*Social Landlord have the ability to apply for ASBO's unlike private landlords.
There is now a professional cricket league in the US. (The Seattle team is called the Orcas, a brilliant choice of a team name, since orcas are worshiped in this area. https://www.seattleorcas.com/ )
We already have "many muddied oafs at the goals", and we now have a few "flanneled fools at the wickets". We are still, relatively speaking, a tolerant bunch.
There is now a professional cricket league in the US. (The Seattle team is called the Orcas, a brilliant choice of a team name, since orcas are worshiped in this area. https://www.seattleorcas.com/ )
We already have "many muddied oafs at the goals", and we now have a few "flanneled fools at the wickets". We are still, relatively speaking, a tolerant bunch.
Its all part of the plan of the IPL owners to turn T20 into a global franchises / travelling league that plays all year round.
Gorgeous day in downtown East London and this morning's welcome cloud allowed me to get some weeding done.
Happy Birthday to the United States of America or should that be the British Dominion of North America. Alternate or counterfactual history is being given a push by AI which tries to create the what might have been and imagines a world in 2026 where the Union Jack flies over Chiddingfold-on-Sea but North America remains partitioned between the great European empires much as Africa was in our reality.
The AI is as unconvincing as my political analysis and as reliable as my racing selections.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
I'm a fan of LVT as land is hard to hide and therefore tax is harder to evade.
The current housing market remains flat as a glut of properties (former tenanted accommodation such as the wife's old flat have been put upfor sale as no one wants the hassle of being a landlord except those who own scores of properties) have met the glut of new builds which of course no one can afford and no one wants to rent.
It will be interesting to see how the later phases of the Twelvetrees development at West Ham and the Fresh Wharf development at Batrking progress.
You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
You could have stopped after 11 words.
But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.
Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?
It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
Creating wealth via business is (in the vast majority of cases) a virtue. A private good that ultimately helps the commonality too. So why are you taxing virtue? It’s as daft as good old Gordon Brown’s tax on saving for your old age (still with us 29 years on), in a country that doesn’t save enough anyway.
Creating wealth from a business means that you could have paid the workers more snd/or sold the products for less.
Then why bother in the first place? So no workers and no product.
The Webster-Ashburton Treaty settled many issues, peacefully, and tried for more cooperation on this one:
The treaty laid down minimum levels of joint anti-slaving naval activity off the West African coast by warship squadrons of both the United States Navy and the British Royal Navy. It formalised levels of co-operation that had briefly existed in 1820 and 1821. It fell short of providing greater co-operation in suppression of the slave trade; there was, for instance, no mutual right for the two countries to inspect vessels flying each other's flag, even when the United States flag / colours were being flown fraudulently by a slaver from a third country. The treaty, therefore, had only a minimal effect for the time in reducing the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
American naval officers of the time would have been enraged by this thought, but for decades in the 19th century the US Navy acted, in effect, as a junior partner to the Royal Navy.
I am very impressed by @interested's attempts to mangle the basic economics of supply and demand.
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
I'm a fan of LVT as land is hard to hide and therefore tax is harder to evade.
The current housing market remains flat as a glut of properties (former tenanted accommodation such as the wife's old flat have been put upfor sale as no one wants the hassle of being a landlord except those who own scores of properties) have met the glut of new builds which of course no one can afford and no one wants to rent.
It will be interesting to see how the later phases of the Twelvetrees development at West Ham and the Fresh Wharf development at Batrking progress.
The number of empty properties in the UK is far lower than the 8-9% that is generally believed to be part of a functioning property market.
the Guardian can reveal that OpenAI does not appear to have visited one of Stargate UK’s key sites – and that £20bn of the “potential” £30bn in investment touted by the UK government appears to have been totally hypothetical. It follows a Guardian investigation in March, which revealed many of the deals to “mainline AI into the veins” of the British economy were “phantom investments”.
Plans for those who choose not to have the rights and obligations of marriage/civil partnership to suddenly acquire those rights when it is convenient to do so. Lots of feigning ignorance about well known and easy to find out law. Coverage absolutely one sided. BBC at its worst.
"If he's remembered at all it will be for him deciding that instead of dealing with bad things in the country, he would instead arrest the people who didn't like the bad things that were happening in the country"
Comments
If landlords could charge more today, they would. Why don't they? Because if they did, they wouldn't rent the place out.
(And, by the way, if rents rise, then demand will fall. People will stay with their parents longer, or will choose to rent out their spare bedroom. Etc. etc.)
Much more fun was the party we held a few weeks later for people who couldn't make the wedding.
See: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2022/english/wpiea2022263-print-pdf.pdf
Otherwise we are back to the old argument that as a landlord sells up the house magically disappears into thin air.
Surely the tax makes it more expensive to leave properties unrented, therefore increasing supply.
On one hand, everyone knows Newton's Laws of Motion, and why Aristotle was wrong.
But it doesn't take much to discombobulate even very trained physicists into thinking about problems in an Aristotlean way. As someone whose professional identity is all about making people think about the physical world the right way, that's pretty dispiriting.
I wonder if there's something similar going on here, except with economics. Cognitiviely, we all know that the price of anything is what the seller and buyer agree on. Costs and whatnot enter the calculation, but only very weakly. That's why microscale landlordism is seen as money for old rope, even when it isn't. But it doesn't take much for people to revert to the more naive model of "selling price = cost + fair profit margin".
I suspect there are a load of other things, that we all know aren't the case, but act as if they are.
Edge cases make bad law.
I’m not sure that “I got to stay in the house, but I also had to keep paying his half of the mortgage” is something that would generate sympathy among, for example, divorced men.
If you buy a house, then get a will.
Cricket is also going well....1/2...good job they bad deep.
"There are very few corners in the world like Copse. Silverstone has 4 of them." It really is a great driving circuit.
1. If it were true how would IHT ever net anything?
2. A wealth tax will still mop up property wealth - those big country estates (of which there are a huge number) aren't going anywhere.
3. Why shouldn't British Citizens be subject to British taxes (net of any local taxes they pay where they reside) no matter where they live? If you want the rights and privileges of British Citizenship you should pay British taxes imo.
What the land value tax does discourage is leaving properties empty, or land undeveloped.
Allowing those on low-income to receive UC support for mortgage payments in a controlled way, instead of for rent, would be a good move too.
Apartments going down in price from $1m to $900k means nothing to you in terms of buying one, if the bank won’t lend you the money to buy it.
@viewcode however...
(Only joking viewcode!!
https://www.gov.uk/residential-property-tribunal-decisions
A land value tax would almost certainly lower rents, because it would discourage properties from being left empty.
*Social Landlord have the ability to apply for ASBO's unlike private landlords.
We already have "many muddied oafs at the goals", and we now have a few "flanneled fools at the wickets".
We are still, relatively speaking, a tolerant bunch.
Gorgeous day in downtown East London and this morning's welcome cloud allowed me to get some weeding done.
Happy Birthday to the United States of America or should that be the British Dominion of North America. Alternate or counterfactual history is being given a push by AI which tries to create the what might have been and imagines a world in 2026 where the Union Jack flies over Chiddingfold-on-Sea but North America remains partitioned between the great European empires much as Africa was in our reality.
The AI is as unconvincing as my political analysis and as reliable as my racing selections.
And the founder of my little town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kirk_(businessman)
The current housing market remains flat as a glut of properties (former tenanted accommodation such as the wife's old flat have been put upfor sale as no one wants the hassle of being a landlord except those who own scores of properties) have met the glut of new builds which of course no one can afford and no one wants to rent.
It will be interesting to see how the later phases of the Twelvetrees development at West Ham and the Fresh Wharf development at Batrking progress.
American naval officers of the time would have been enraged by this thought, but for decades in the 19th century the US Navy acted, in effect, as a junior partner to the Royal Navy.
The U.K. number is 2-3%
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/04/openai-apparent-failure-visit-key-site-questions-stargate-uk-project
"If he's remembered at all it will be for him deciding that instead of dealing with bad things in the country, he would instead arrest the people who didn't like the bad things that were happening in the country"
https://x.com/basilthegreat/status/2073361381923917975