Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
As far as I can tell the Labour manifesto doesn't give the details of how the tax would be levied.
But the phrase "land value tax" wasn't coined in the Labour manifesto. And "land value tax" is generally understood to be a form of wealth tax - and wealth taxes are levied on the owners of assets not the users.
My point was that calling council tax a land value tax is misleading as it is paid by occupiers.
We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term
Not much in that, unless there's more hidden away-seems like the detail is from 'Labour blueprint for the tax from 2015' according to the story?
I do like how the story refers to as 'small print', a phrase designed to make us suspicious.
Economists certainly favour a land value tax. Unfortunately there are more home owners than economists.
I could have swung one of three ways, but ultimately I can't condone either the tories or labour leaderships and manifestos.
I'm going to be voting for Tim (not a sin).
Wow, that's two votes the LDs have got, Pong! Both are for different reasons, I'm sure, but it's two more than some thought they might get.
Yeah.
The frustrating thing is this was the IDEAL election for the Lib dems.
They had the chance to present themselves as a serious and competent alternative government, pursuing a super-soft brexit. They could have got ~40%.
Sadly, Tim (not a sin) ain't no Trudeau.
IDK, maybe Farron also has a rocking set of abs (I am given to understand).
I think 40 is pushing it, but I thought they could at least push toward 20 seats if things went well. Now 5 is more likely than that.
I'm still undecided on that front. I like enough of the Tory pitch, in terms of I think it realistic, and dislike Corbyn enough to the point I should vote for them, but May is not very good. Farron isn't good either, but there are some decent LD ideas, and I feel bad for them and want third parties to do well and know the local candidate. As it doesn't matter in a safe seat its about going with my gut, and usually I'd consider local effort, but there's been nothing so far from anyone (LDs probably off fighting in Bath anyway), but my gut is uncertain.
I think the proposal of a cap has somewhat detoxified the dementia tax issue.
After all a cap was what was proposed under the coalition.
Anyway, I'll find a pdf of Labour's manifesto to see whether this Garden tax stuff is true.
It just says there will be a review into reforming council tax and consider options such as a land value tax - the drama of the detail seems to come from an old 'blueprint' of how such an option would work.
My family lives in a house with a garden. Will I be trusting John McDonnell on this issue? No.
This is worse than the Tories social care policy (which I opposed).
My parents aren't rich and don't deserve to see their council tax potentially treble which according to the Telegraph could happen.
I knew I wasn't voting Labour, but I live in a marginal and this potential tax makes me re-think about where my vote could go.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I could have swung one of three ways, but ultimately I can't condone either the tories or labour leaderships and manifestos.
I'm going to be voting for Tim (not a sin).
Wow, that's two votes the LDs have got, Pong! Both are for different reasons, I'm sure, but it's two more than some thought they might get.
Yeah.
The frustrating thing is this was the IDEAL election for the Lib dems.
They had the chance to present themselves as a serious and competent alternative government, pursuing a super-soft brexit. They could have got ~40%.
Sadly, Tim (not a sin) ain't no Trudeau.
IDK, maybe Farron also has a rocking set of abs (I am given to understand).
I think 40 is pushing it, but I thought they could at least push toward 20 seats if things went well. Now 5 is more likely than that.
I'm still undecided on that front. I like enough of the Tory pitch, in terms of I think it realistic, and dislike Corbyn enough to the point I should vote for them, but May is not very good. Farron isn't good either, but there are some decent LD ideas, and I feel bad for them and want third parties to do well and know the local candidate. As it doesn't matter in a safe seat its about going with my gut, and usually I'd consider local effort, but there's been nothing so far from anyone (LDs probably off fighting in Bath anyway), but my gut is uncertain.
I think the proposal of a cap has somewhat detoxified the dementia tax issue.
After all a cap was what was proposed under the coalition.
Anyway, I'll find a pdf of Labour's manifesto to see whether this Garden tax stuff is true.
It just says there will be a review into reforming council tax and consider options such as a land value tax - the drama of the detail seems to come from an old 'blueprint' of how such an option would work.
My family lives in a house with a garden. Will I be trusting John McDonnell on this issue? No.
This is worse than the Tories social care policy (which I opposed).
My parents aren't rich and don't deserve to see their council tax potentially treble which according to the Telegraph could happen.
I knew I wasn't voting Labour, but I live in a marginal and this potential tax makes me re-think about where my vote could go.
The Garden Tax could be Labour's Dementia Tax. Misleading, but highly effective. Those Sun and Mail headline writers must be drooling over this. And a week before the election. Landslide back on?
Looking at the section which mentions the Garden Tax (for such we must now inevitable refer to it) I remember the bit on the same page highlighting the cuts to youth services and closure of hundreds of youth centres (it's been cut to pieces round here), which it cleverly says it will 'end the cuts' to, but doesn't say they will reverse the cuts.
The Garden Tax could be Labour's Dementia Tax. Misleading, but highly effective. Those Sun and Mail headline writers must be drooling over this. And a week before the election. Landslide back on?
Whatever the final result was, it probably was always going to be in all honesty. Particularly if it fits one of those highly r^2 models based off leadership, LEs, BEs or a combination thereof. Those are all bad for Labour in case you're wondering - 16 - 19% lead for Tories.
Looking at the section which mentions the Garden Tax (for such we must now inevitable refer to it) I remember the bit on the same page highlighting the cuts to youth services and closure of hundreds of youth centres (it's been cut to pieces round here), which it cleverly says it will 'end the cuts' to, but doesn't say they will reverse the cuts.
They've decided a £10bn bung to middle class students is more important than reversing cuts.
Looking at the section which mentions the Garden Tax (for such we must now inevitable refer to it) I remember the bit on the same page highlighting the cuts to youth services and closure of hundreds of youth centres (it's been cut to pieces round here), which it cleverly says it will 'end the cuts' to, but doesn't say they will reverse the cuts.
They've decided a £10bn bung to middle class students is more important than reversing cuts.
Electorally, makes perfect sense - it's not like the Tories are going to say 'Labour won't reverse our cruel policy on youth services!'
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
Landlords will charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of their own costs. Although I like some of the arguments for LVT, it seems to me to be a substitution for the simpler and more logical solution of nationalising all land. People rent land as a common good and make their decisions about whether they can improve it enough at a low enough cost to make a profit from the rent. When you put it that way you can see why land nationalisation and Land Value Tax as a substitute for never gets outside the discussion stage. There are very powerful land owners who would see their portfolios reduced to nothing.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
Rent caps? ;-)
If you don't mind crashing the housing market (which is by no means necessarily a bad thing).
A video that serves to remind us how much better DC was at TV than Mother May. I don't know why I'm so nostalgic for DC, I wasn't much of a fan, but during this campaign I've missed him. Must remember to get a life.
Hey, Y0Kel! Don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate PB Tories will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx! WVAP! Fry half a Labour majority with this puppy! We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks... Election flyers...
You'd better just start dealing with it, Sunil! Listen to me! Sunil! Just deal with it because we need you and I'm sick of your bullshit.
TORY GAINS FROM LABOUR (18) Halifax, Wirral West, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Barrow & Furness, Wolverhampton South West, Dewsbury, North East Derbyshire, Middlesbrough South, Walsall North, Wrexham, Wakefield, (Copeland), Stoke South, Clwyd South, Darlington, Scunthorpe, Dudley North, Great Grimsby
TORY GAINS FROM SNP (5) Berwickshire, East Renfrewshire, Dumfries & Galloway, Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine, Aberdeen South
TORY GAINS FROM LIB DEMS (2) Southport, North Norfolk, (Richmond Park)
TORY GAIN FROM UKIP (1) Clacton
LABOUR GAINS FROM TORIES (4) Bury North, Brighton Kemptown, Cardiff North, Bristol North West
LABOUR GAINS FROM SNP (2) Edinburgh North & Leith, East Lothian
LABOUR GAINS FROM LIB DEMS (1) Leeds North West
LABOUR GAINS FROM GREENS (1) Brighton Pavilion
LIB DEM GAINS FROM TORIES (3) Twickenham, Kingston & Surbiton, Bath
LIB DEM GAINS FROM SNP (2) East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West
Bristol NW has a majority of nearly 10%.
You'd be better replacing it with Croydon Central.
Nor will Labour gain Bury North if there is a swing to the Conservatives in northern England.
I've had a strong feeling about Bristol NW for a while. It was VERY pro-Remain (I think either that or Bath was the most Remain Tory seat outside of London), and there is some demographic change going on there, albeit not as fast demographic change as a true "inner city" seat.
Bury North is a bit more of a stretch, but Labour's results in the Greater Manchester mayoral election really were RIP-ROARINGLY good -- I'm not sure all of that was a personal vote for Burnham.
As you've got no Conservative gain in London you must have a pro-Labour swing there - in which case Croydon Central is a very likely Labour gain.
There's a significant UKIP vote in Bristol NW and the Conservatives did win the Mayoral elections there last month. Still its a 14/1 shot on Betfair if you fancy it.
Bury North again has a big UKIP vote and its on the edge of the conurbation, in many ways its more of a Lancashire constituency than that of Greater Manchester.
I knew I wasn't voting Labour, but I live in a marginal and this potential tax makes me re-think about where my vote could go.
Be under no illusions, your parents taxes are going up by a country mile if Labour get in. Particularly THIS lot. McDonnell is literally a marxist.
For the first time, I'm actually very scared about a potential government and these polls 'closing' the gap are freaking me out. A potential May governmenthas made me feel miserable, Corbyn government is making me scared as hell. Miserable >>>>> scared any day of the week.
Tell me that there's no chance that they are getting in. I had a feeling that they (McDonnell in particular) regard anyone with a mortgage as basically the 'elite' and 'rich', but this confirms it. They are being vague for a reason.
Labour needs to be rid of anyone who calls themselves a 'Marxist' and have someone sane in there. And Corbynistas on Twitter keep on telling people 'don't worry they'll only tax people over 80k'.
Mr Ears seems to have a very good understanding of SVT, if I may say so without appearing to condescend. It is a tax on the value of the land, as if it had not been developed. It makes no difference if you have one house built on it, no houses, or ten houses.
The moral case is that you yourself have not increased the value of the land (in all probability), instead its increase arises from the infrastructure that has been put in round it, such as road access and drainage, and the increased value placed upon it by the granting of planning permission - by the local council on behalf of society.
This is why it's always easy to park in Tokyo. If you have some land that's vacant, even for a short time between construction projects, you call a company that will manage it as a car park for you and make you enough to pay the taxes on it.
I knew I wasn't voting Labour, but I live in a marginal and this potential tax makes me re-think about where my vote could go.
Be under no illusions, your parents taxes are going up by a country mile if Labour get in. Particularly THIS lot. McDonnell is literally a marxist.
For the first time, I'm actually very scared about a potential government and these polls 'closing' the gap are freaking me out. A potential May governmenthas made me feel miserable, Corbyn government is making me scared as hell. Miserable >>>>> scared any day of the week.
Tell me that there's no chance that they are getting in. I had a feeling that they (McDonnell in particular) regard anyone with a mortgage as basically the 'elite' and 'rich', but this confirms it. They are being vague for a reason.
Labour needs to be rid of anyone who calls themselves a 'Marxist' and have someone sane in there. And Corbynistas on Twitter keep on telling people 'don't worry they'll only tax people over 80k'.
Have a valium. The Tories will win - it's just a case of how big a majority. That's what the wobble's about.
I knew I wasn't voting Labour, but I live in a marginal and this potential tax makes me re-think about where my vote could go.
Be under no illusions, your parents taxes are going up by a country mile if Labour get in. Particularly THIS lot. McDonnell is literally a marxist.
For the first time, I'm actually very scared about a potential government and these polls 'closing' the gap are freaking me out. A potential May governmenthas made me feel miserable, Corbyn government is making me scared as hell. Miserable >>>>> scared any day of the week.
Tell me that there's no chance that they are getting in. I had a feeling that they (McDonnell in particular) regard anyone with a mortgage as basically the 'elite' and 'rich', but this confirms it. They are being vague for a reason.
Labour needs to be rid of anyone who calls themselves a 'Marxist' and have someone sane in there. And Corbynistas on Twitter keep on telling people 'don't worry they'll only tax people over 80k'.
Let us know what your mum thinks of the policy.
As for if there is a chance they could get in...not no chance. Technically. But to even get to Lab plurality would require an awful lot.
I knew I wasn't voting Labour, but I live in a marginal and this potential tax makes me re-think about where my vote could go.
Be under no illusions, your parents taxes are going up by a country mile if Labour get in. Particularly THIS lot. McDonnell is literally a marxist.
Everyone's taxes are going up, whoever gets in. But they will go up a lot more if Labour gets in.
There's a difference between moderate/reasonable taxes rises based on the incoming hard decisions, and taxes based on class envy and seeing anyone who earns over 25k as 'rich.'
Tell me that there's no chance that they are getting in. I had a feeling that they (McDonnell in particular) regard anyone with a mortgage as basically the 'elite' and 'rich', but this confirms it. They are being vague for a reason.
Well, surely that's to be expected, no? They're hard-left socialists, aiming to nationalise a pile of things and drastically increase government spending in any number of expensive areas. Inevitably the rich aren't going to fund that, there aren't enough of them and their wealth is too mobile - it's going to come from the middle classes, and of course from huge borrowing.
I knew I wasn't voting Labour, but I live in a marginal and this potential tax makes me re-think about where my vote could go.
Be under no illusions, your parents taxes are going up by a country mile if Labour get in. Particularly THIS lot. McDonnell is literally a marxist.
For the first time, I'm actually very scared about a potential government and these polls 'closing' the gap are freaking me out. A potential May governmenthas made me feel miserable, Corbyn government is making me scared as hell. Miserable >>>>> scared any day of the week.
Tell me that there's no chance that they are getting in. I had a feeling that they (McDonnell in particular) regard anyone with a mortgage as basically the 'elite' and 'rich', but this confirms it. They are being vague for a reason.
Labour needs to be rid of anyone who calls themselves a 'Marxist' and have someone sane in there. And Corbynistas on Twitter keep on telling people 'don't worry they'll only tax people over 80k'.
Let us know what your mum thinks of the policy.
As for if there is a chance they could get in...not no chance. Technically. But to even get to Lab plurality would require an awful lot.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
It's not my preferred policy, but I can see how it would deliver lots of long term benefits (as well as short term pain) for the economy. The idea that tenants would *obviously* have the costs passed onto them is incorrect though.
Didn't Tony Blair get caught out or embarrassed on General election QT
In 2005, yes. I actually though Tone looked ill on that programe... He was pasty, puffy, sweaty.
He looked quite unwell...
Imagine the bad luck if you got a virus or really bad cold during a campaign, ugh, terrible. And with all that handshaking and everything.
Probably best to avoid voters.
Fears over a candidate's health/vitality is always big in the US, if you remember Hillary having to be propped up into the back of a car. West Wing fans will remember this:
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
It's not my preferred policy, but I can see how it would deliver lots of long term benefits (and short term pain) for the economy. The idea that tenants would *obviously* have the costs passed onto them is incorrect though.
Values would readjust.
Significantly.
The resulting crash would provide a pretext for nationalising the banks too so it's win-win from the Shadow Chancellor's perspective.
My hunch is that if the Tory lead is 10%, their majority will be closer to 100 than 50.
I don't think that necessarily follows anymore.
The recent polls have suggested that Labour's rise in voteshare has been disproportionately concentrated in the North, Wales and to some extent in the Midlands (i.e. where their previously vulnerable seats largely are), while being more stable in the South, London and Scotland -- thus making for a more "efficient" Labour vote distribution.
My hunch is that if the Tory lead is 10%, their majority will be closer to 100 than 50.
I don't think that necessarily follows anymore.
The recent polls have suggested that Labour's rise in voteshare has been disproportionately concentrated in the North, Wales and to some extent in the Midlands (i.e. where their previously vulnerable seats largely are), while being more stable in the South, London and Scotland -- thus making for a more "efficient" Labour vote distribution.
Yes but we never know what the pesky voters REALLY think till the election results start coming in !
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So the govt - the marxist one - taxes us all and hey presto we are all better off. 'Gee' said Yossarian, 'thats some tax that tax 22'
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
The tax incidence of LTV is on the owner because the supply of land is fixed. This is ultimately what stops landlords passing on the cost to tenants. (Worth reading through Wikipedia's fairly readable guide to tax incidence - once you get your head around how elasticity of supply and demand affect incidence, and recognise that supply of land is fixed, the result is intuitive.)
The effect of LVT on land prices is more ambiguous. The first-order effect is a reduction in price, as you would expect. But if LVT leads to reduction in other taxes, or increased investment, this can cause land prices to rise.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So the govt - the marxist one - taxes us all and hey presto we are all better off. 'Gee' said Yossarian, 'thats some tax that tax 22'
Those without property will be better off, those with property will be worse off.
My hunch is that if the Tory lead is 10%, their majority will be closer to 100 than 50.
I don't think that necessarily follows anymore.
The recent polls have suggested that Labour's rise in voteshare has been disproportionately concentrated in the North, Wales and to some extent in the Midlands (i.e. where their previously vulnerable seats largely are), while being more stable in the South, London and Scotland -- thus making for a more "efficient" Labour vote distribution.
Can we read enough from sub-samples (notwithstanding the separate Wales polls) to declare where Labour's bounce (if there is one) is coming from? I'm not sure we can.
A video that serves to remind us how much better DC was at TV than Mother May. I don't know why I'm so nostalgic for DC, I wasn't much of a fan, but during this campaign I've missed him. Must remember to get a life.
I remember just how critical Iain Martin was about David Cameron for years, hindsight provides new eyes....
My hunch is that if the Tory lead is 10%, their majority will be closer to 100 than 50.
I don't think that necessarily follows anymore.
The recent polls have suggested that Labour's rise in voteshare has been disproportionately concentrated in the North, Wales and to some extent in the Midlands (i.e. where their previously vulnerable seats largely are), while being more stable in the South, London and Scotland -- thus making for a more "efficient" Labour vote distribution.
Can we read enough from sub-samples (notwithstanding the separate Wales polls) to declare where Labour's bounce (if there is one) is coming from? I'm not sure we can.
Well, the previous assumption that Labour was suffering an above-average swing in their traditional "heartlands" (which is where all the predictions of Labour being set to win even less seats than UNS indicated came from) was mostly just based on subsamples in the first place
My hunch is that if the Tory lead is 10%, their majority will be closer to 100 than 50.
I don't think that necessarily follows anymore.
The recent polls have suggested that Labour's rise in voteshare has been disproportionately concentrated in the North, Wales and to some extent in the Midlands (i.e. where their previously vulnerable seats largely are), while being more stable in the South, London and Scotland -- thus making for a more "efficient" Labour vote distribution.
Can we read enough from sub-samples (notwithstanding the separate Wales polls) to declare where Labour's bounce (if there is one) is coming from? I'm not sure we can.
Well, the previous assumption that Labour was suffering an above-average swing in their traditional "heartlands" (which is where all the predictions of Labour being set to win even less seats than UNS indicated came from) was mostly just based on subsamples in the first place
What seat are you canvassing etc in out of interest - was it Wirral West ?
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So the govt - the marxist one - taxes us all and hey presto we are all better off. 'Gee' said Yossarian, 'thats some tax that tax 22'
Those without property will be better off, those with property will be worse off.
A word to the wise, the SNP just lifted the council tax freeze up here and then went after those owning bigger houses in the hope of pocketing the increased tax revenue centrally while at the same time imposing cuts to council budgets. The voters reacted with an increased turnout in many areas most effected, and local elections results that fell far short of SNP expectations just weeks before a GE.
A video that serves to remind us how much better DC was at TV than Mother May. I don't know why I'm so nostalgic for DC, I wasn't much of a fan, but during this campaign I've missed him. Must remember to get a life.
I remember just how critical Iain Martin was about David Cameron for years, hindsight provides new eyes....
Thanks for the link: nice piece, and exactly where I'm coming from. I had hoped he'd stay in government and maybe one day return to a cabinet post - Ed Sec? - but alas the days of former PMs hanging around are long over. I think the EU ref point is often forgotten by us Brexiteers: it was under DC's watch that the Tories put a renegotiation and ref in a manifesto, and then executed that commitment in government. Of course, the renegotiation was a farce and DC probably assumed he'd win the ref at a canter(and thus was worth putting in to atttact UKIP voters) but still.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So the govt - the marxist one - taxes us all and hey presto we are all better off. 'Gee' said Yossarian, 'thats some tax that tax 22'
Those without property will be better off, those with property will be worse off.
Clearly those without are always wanting stuff from those with. That is what elections used to be about. If the tories just discovered this ferengi print in labours manifesto where were the journalists all this time? If the tories have known about it for a bit its interesting timing to push it out now. Quite a dead cat.
Twitter Ed Conway @EdConwaySky 2h2 hours ago Most economists rather like idea of a land tax instead of council tax. Then again, most economists have little grasp of what wins elections
Twitter Ed Conway @EdConwaySky 2h2 hours ago Most economists rather like idea of a land tax instead of council tax. Then again, most economists have little grasp of what wins elections
Economists may know more about electoral dynamics than Ed Conway thinks they do.
Homeowners have become (always were?) the tory client vote.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So a 5% tax will cause a 75% reduction in land value?
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
Thanks for the link: nice piece, and exactly where I'm coming from. I had hoped he'd stay in government and maybe one day return to a cabinet post - Ed Sec? - but alas the days of former PMs hanging around are long over. I think the EU ref point is often forgotten by us Brexiteers: it was under DC's watch that the Tories put a renegotiation and ref in a manifesto, and then executed that commitment in government. Of course, the renegotiation was a farce and DC probably assumed he'd win the ref at a canter(and thus was worth putting in to atttact UKIP voters) but still.
Sacking George Osborne in the manner she did remains one of Theresa May's biggest political mistakes to date, she then effectively stripped her own Cabinet and Government of some of its biggest hitters at both media and Ministerial level because of their 'loyalty' to Cameron and Osborne. It is to Cameron and Osborne's credit that they not only managed to bring back Hague, IDS and even Ken Clarke back into the Shadow Cabinet fold, but managed to deploy them all very effectively as they did Major when required. What Lynton Crosby could have done with Cameron, Osborne, Major etc during this election when the chips were down during the Social Care row etc we will never know. But it speaks volumes about May and her team that none of these big hitters where available to her when she really needed them, and now Osborne is editing the Standard instead. And all because May's team like Gordon Brown's before her preferred to hold grudges to the detriment of good political judgement and governance.
If May is returned with a good working majority, she needs to now put the country first and those grudges second as we head into those bruising Brexit negociations while she tries to juggle her domestic agenda. She needs a Cabinet not only full of talent able to do the day jobs at Ministerial level, but also a Cabinet she works with as a team and who can then effectively get out there in the TV/Radio studios and sell the Governments domestic and Brexit programme. May and her team don't just have a duty to her premiership, they have a duty to provide a Government record in Office and the platform for us to find the best Conservative successor who would be proud to inherit her shoes if she chooses not to run again for Office in 2022.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So a 5% tax will cause a 75% reduction in land value?
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
And the mortgage would still be 8k, surely? The house hasn't got any cheaper!
I can't believe anyone could remotely think that an overnight 75% crash in house prices would be welcome. While a house price adjustment might be desirable, how many would be in catastrophic negative equity?
If a 5% tax caused a 10% crash in property values (still a considerable fall):
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 360K. 5% tax = -18k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -7.2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >25.2K/year or £2100 PCM
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So a 5% tax will cause a 75% reduction in land value?
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
And the mortgage would still be 8k, surely? The house hasn't got any cheaper!
Indeed for anyone in negative equity who'd purchased the property before the crash they'd still be liable for what they'd borrowed in full.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So a 5% tax will cause a 75% reduction in land value?
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
And the mortgage would still be 8k, surely? The house hasn't got any cheaper!
Yeah. Major negative equity for many.
Shockingly few people seem to realise taking on a mortgage is a massive leveraged gamble on house prices.
After the crash in Ireland - and when a LVT was being proposed - some properties were down 90% from their peak.
There were a few extreme examples in the Irish midlands of 95%+, although I can't find them on google right now
My hunch is that if the Tory lead is 10%, their majority will be closer to 100 than 50.
I don't think that necessarily follows anymore.
The recent polls have suggested that Labour's rise in voteshare has been disproportionately concentrated in the North, Wales and to some extent in the Midlands (i.e. where their previously vulnerable seats largely are), while being more stable in the South, London and Scotland -- thus making for a more "efficient" Labour vote distribution.
Can we read enough from sub-samples (notwithstanding the separate Wales polls) to declare where Labour's bounce (if there is one) is coming from? I'm not sure we can.
London, the North, Wales, West Midlands and a little everywhere else.
Twitter Ed Conway @EdConwaySky 2h2 hours ago Most economists rather like idea of a land tax instead of council tax. Then again, most economists have little grasp of what wins elections
Economists may know more about electoral dynamics than Ed Conway thinks they do.
Homeowners have become (always were?) the tory client vote.
The SNP are discovering to their cost that unfreezing the council tax, increasing the council tax on bigger homes after the imposing that stamp duty levy at a time when the Scottish housing market and economy is hanging on by a shoogle peg is not a vote winner up here in Scotland.
Hitting those that do own their own homes, with or without a mortgage, this hard in their pocket is not a vote winner. While their actions might not effect the better off, it will effect the just/barely managing majority after ten years of financial belt tightening. You only have to look at the constituencies up here in Scotland where the SNP are now suddenly looking very vulnerable after the local elections and at this GE. So no, just maybe the economists don't know more about the electoral dynamics of this issue than Ed Conway thinks they do.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So a 5% tax will cause a 75% reduction in land value?
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
And the mortgage would still be 8k, surely? The house hasn't got any cheaper!
Indeed for anyone in negative equity who'd purchased the property before the crash they'd still be liable for what they'd borrowed in full.
You'd get a Tory revival in Islington and Muswell Hill if that ever came to pass..
Thanks for the link: nice piece, and exactly where I'm coming from. I had hoped he'd stay in government and maybe one day return to a cabinet post - Ed Sec? - but alas the days of former PMs hanging around are long over. I think the EU ref point is often forgotten by us Brexiteers: it was under DC's watch that the Tories put a renegotiation and ref in a manifesto, and then executed that commitment in government. Of course, the renegotiation was a farce and DC probably assumed he'd win the ref at a canter(and thus was worth putting in to atttact UKIP voters) but still.
Sacking George Osborne in the manner she did remains one of Theresa May's biggest political mistakes to date, she then effectively stripped her own Cabinet and Government of some of its biggest hitters at both media and Ministerial level because of their 'loyalty' to Cameron and Osborne. It is to Cameron and Osborne's credit that they not only managed to bring back Hague, IDS and even Ken Clarke back into the Shadow Cabinet fold, but managed to deploy them all very effectively as they did Major when required. What Lynton Crosby could have done with Cameron, Osborne, Major etc during this election when the chips were down during the Social Care row etc we will never know. But it speaks volumes about May and her team that none of these big hitters where available to her when she really needed them, and now Osborne is editing the Standard instead. And all because May's team like Gordon Brown's before her preferred to hold grudges to the detriment of good political judgement and governance.
If May is returned with a good working majority, she needs to now put the country first and those grudges second as we head into those bruising Brexit negociations while she tries to juggle her domestic agenda. She needs a Cabinet not only full of talent able to do the day jobs at Ministerial level, but also a Cabinet she works with as a team and who can then effectively get out there in the TV/Radio studios and sell the Governments domestic and Brexit programme. May and her team don't just have a duty to her premiership, they have a duty to provide a Government record in Office and the platform for us to find the best Conservative successor who would be proud to inherit her shoes if she chooses not to run again for Office in 2022.
I think significant property taxation - in some form - is inevitable over the coming years.
The tax avoiding bots are going to continue eating into income tax receipts and we have to figure out a way to fund the baby boomers retirement/health/social care somehow.
Unless we find another north sea oil, or something - chancellors (blue, red and/or yellow) will have no option but to take aim at property. LVT is one option. Social care levy is another.
The era of (largely) tax-free property ownership and house price gains could well be over.
So there is no actual evidence that council tax will actual treble... just some back of a fag packet calculations based on a sentence in the Labour manifesto. Why are people taken in by this nonsense?
Thanks for the link: nice piece, and exovernment. Of course, the renegotiation was a farce and DC probably assumed he'd win the ref at a canter(and thus was worth putting in to atttact UKIP voters) but still.
Sacking George Osborne in the manner she did remains one of Theresa May's biggest political mistakes to date, she then effectively stripped her own Cabinet and Government of some of its biggest hitters at both media and Ministerial level because of their 'loyalty' to Cameron and Osborne. It is to Cameron and Osborne's credit that they not only managed to bring back Hague, IDS and even Ken Clarke back into the Shadow Cabinet fold, but managed to deploy them all very effectively as they did Major when required. What Lynton Crosby could have done with Cameron, Osborne, Major etc during this election when the chips were down during the Social Care row etc we will never know. But it speaks volumes about May and her team that none of these big hitters where available to her when she really needed them, and now Osborne is editing the Standard instead. And all because May's team like Gordon Brown's before her preferred to hold grudges to the detriment of good political judgement and governance.
If May is returned with a good working majority, she needs to now put the country first and those grudges second as we head into those bruising Brexit negociations while she tries to juggle her domestic agenda. She needs a Cabinet not only full of talent able to do the day jobs at Ministerial level, but also a Cabinet she works with as a team and who can then effectively get out there in the TV/Radio studios and sell the Governments domestic and Brexit programme. May and her team don't just have a duty to her premiership, they have a duty to provide a Government record in Office and the platform for us to find the best Conservative successor who would be proud to inherit her shoes if she chooses not to run again for Office in 2022.
Very well said. I agree totally
Saw a comment elsewhere that the Tories have their "B" team out for this election, and for various reasons so do Labour.
Arguably the Lib Dems are in the same boat as well. Very thin front benches on all sides.
I think significant property taxation - in some form - is inevitable over the coming years.
The tax avoiding bots are going to continue eating into income tax receipts and we have to figure out a way to fund the baby boomers retirement/health/social care somehow.
Unless we find another north sea oil, or something - chancellors (blue, red and/or yellow) will have no option but to take aim at property. LVT is one option. Social care levy is another.
The era of (largely) tax-free property ownership and house price gains could well be over.
'twas fun (for some) while it lasted.
I was born 30 years too late.
Absolutely agree. It should be gradually phased in - which means the sooner we start the better. Land value tax explained here:
Thanks for the link: nice piece, and exactly where I'm coming from. I had hoped he'd stay in government and maybe one day return to a cabinet post - Ed Sec? - but alas the days of former PMs hanging around are long over. I think the EU ref point is often forgotten by us Brexiteers: it was under DC's watch that the Tories put a renegotiation and ref in a manifesto, and then executed that commitment in government. Of course, the renegotiation was a farce and DC probably assumed he'd win the ref at a canter(and thus was worth putting in to atttact UKIP voters) but still.
Sacking George Osborne in the manner she did remains one of Theresa May's biggest political mistakes to date, she then effectively stripped her own Cabinet and Government of some of its biggest hitters at both media and Ministerial level because of their 'loyalty' to Cameron and Osborne. It is to Cameron and Osborne's credit that they not only managed to bring back Hague, IDS and even Ken Clarke back into the Shadow Cabinet fold, but managed to deploy them all very effectively as they did Major when required. What Lynton Crosby could have done with Cameron, Osborne, Major etc during this election when the chips were down during the Social Care row etc we will never know. But it speaks volumes about May and her team that none of these big hitters where available to her when she really needed them, and now Osborne is editing the Standard instead. And all because May's team like Gordon Brown's before her preferred to hold grudges to the detriment of good political judgement and governance.
If May is returned with a good working majority, she needs to now put the country first and those grudges second as we head into those bruising Brexit negociations while she tries to juggle her domestic agenda. She needs a Cabinet not only full of talent able to do the day jobs at Ministerial level, but also a Cabinet she works with as a team and who can then effectively get out there in the TV/Radio studios and sell the Governments domestic and Brexit programme. May and her team don't just have a duty to her premiership, they have a duty to provide a Government record in Office and the platform for us to find the best Conservative successor who would be proud to inherit her shoes if she chooses not to run again for Office in 2022.
Not really true. Gove sacked himself and after Osborne's claims he could hardly stay as chancellor.
I think significant property taxation - in some form - is inevitable over the coming years.
The tax avoiding bots are going to continue eating into income tax receipts and we have to figure out a way to fund the baby boomers retirement/health/social care somehow.
Unless we find another north sea oil, or something - chancellors (blue, red and/or yellow) will have no option but to take aim at property. LVT is one option. Social care levy is another.
The era of (largely) tax-free property ownership and house price gains could well be over.
'twas fun (for some) while it lasted.
I was born 30 years too late.
Absolutely agree. It should be gradually phased in - which means the sooner we start the better. Land value tax explained here:
There has to be a cross-party agreement and introduced in one parliament for a start in the next. Also maybe tapered in the first few years.
This could be one way of taking care of our perennial problem about what to do with buy-to-let properties.
This could be a runner if it is generally agreed. However, a revaluation has to be built-in which could not be cancelled or postponed. Otherwise, we will end up with the same time-bombs we face with council taxes.
Thanks for the link: nice piece, and exovernment. Of course, the renegotiation was a farce and DC probably assumed he'd win the ref at a canter(and thus was worth putting in to atttact UKIP voters) but still.
Sacking George Osborne in the manner she did remains one of Theresa May's biggest political mistakes to date, she then effectively stripped her own Cabinet and Government of some of its biggest hitters at both media and Ministerial level because of their 'loyalty' to Cameron and Osborne. It is to Cameron and Osborne's credit that they not only managed to bring back Hague, IDS and even Ken Clarke back into the Shadow Cabinet fold, but managed to deploy them all very effectively as they did Major when required. What Lynton Crosby could have done with Cameron, Osborne, Major etc during this election when the chips were down during the Social Care row etc we will never know. But it speaks volumes about May and her team that none of these big hitters where available to her when she really needed them, and now Osborne is editing the Standard instead. And all because May's team like Gordon Brown's before her preferred to hold grudges to the detriment of good political judgement and governance.
If May is returned with a good working majority, she needs to now put the country first and those grudges second as we head into those bruising Brexit negociations while she tries to juggle her domestic agenda. She needs a Cabinet not only full of talent able to do the day jobs at Ministerial level, but also a Cabinet she works with as a team and who can then effectively get out there in the TV/Radio studios and sell the Governments domestic and Brexit programme. May and her team don't just have a duty to her premiership, they have a duty to provide a Government record in Office and the platform for us to find the best Conservative successor who would be proud to inherit her shoes if she chooses not to run again for Office in 2022.
Very well said. I agree totally
Saw a comment elsewhere that the Tories have their "B" team out for this election, and for various reasons so do Labour.
Arguably the Lib Dems are in the same boat as well. Very thin front benches on all sides.
I think significant property taxation - in some form - is inevitable over the coming years.
The tax avoiding bots are going to continue eating into income tax receipts and we have to figure out a way to fund the baby boomers retirement/health/social care somehow.
Unless we find another north sea oil, or something - chancellors (blue, red and/or yellow) will have no option but to take aim at property. LVT is one option. Social care levy is another.
The era of (largely) tax-free property ownership and house price gains could well be over.
'twas fun (for some) while it lasted.
I was born 30 years too late.
Absolutely agree. It should be gradually phased in - which means the sooner we start the better. Land value tax explained here:
There has to be a cross-party agreement and introduced in one parliament for a start in the next. Also maybe tapered in the first few years.
This could be one way of taking care of our perennial problem about what to do with buy-to-let properties.
This could be a runner if it is generally agreed. However, a revaluation has to be built-in which could not be cancelled or postponed. Otherwise, we will end up with the same time-bombs we face with council taxes.
Total value of UK residential property is something like 6 trillion pounds. 0.5% tax/year could raise 30 billion on residential property. On the average 200k home it would be £1,000 a year, on £85/month. It will hurt land speculators a lot. Those country estates will also get hammered?
Possible social effects (speculating)... I could easily imagine a shift back to intergenerational living arrangements. The grandparents moving in with the parents...
I think significant property taxation - in some form - is inevitable over the coming years.
The tax avoiding bots are going to continue eating into income tax receipts and we have to figure out a way to fund the baby boomers retirement/health/social care somehow.
Unless we find another north sea oil, or something - chancellors (blue, red and/or yellow) will have no option but to take aim at property. LVT is one option. Social care levy is another.
The era of (largely) tax-free property ownership and house price gains could well be over.
'twas fun (for some) while it lasted.
I was born 30 years too late.
Absolutely agree. It should be gradually phased in - which means the sooner we start the better. Land value tax explained here:
There has to be a cross-party agreement and introduced in one parliament for a start in the next. Also maybe tapered in the first few years.
This could be one way of taking care of our perennial problem about what to do with buy-to-let properties.
This could be a runner if it is generally agreed. However, a revaluation has to be built-in which could not be cancelled or postponed. Otherwise, we will end up with the same time-bombs we face with council taxes.
It would need an enforcement mechanism and a government with big enough balls (or enough political capital) to break any boycott.
Part of the reason why we tax income so heavily isn't because it's right, or fair. It's because it's so damn easy for the chancellor to collect.
Finding a property owner and getting him to write a cheque every year is a little more difficult.
I think significant property taxation - in some form - is inevitable over the coming years.
The tax avoiding bots are going to continue eating into income tax receipts and we have to figure out a way to fund the baby boomers retirement/health/social care somehow.
Unless we find another north sea oil, or something - chancellors (blue, red and/or yellow) will have no option but to take aim at property. LVT is one option. Social care levy is another.
The era of (largely) tax-free property ownership and house price gains could well be over.
'twas fun (for some) while it lasted.
I was born 30 years too late.
Absolutely agree. It should be gradually phased in - which means the sooner we start the better. Land value tax explained here:
There has to be a cross-party agreement and introduced in one parliament for a start in the next. Also maybe tapered in the first few years.
This could be one way of taking care of our perennial problem about what to do with buy-to-let properties.
This could be a runner if it is generally agreed. However, a revaluation has to be built-in which could not be cancelled or postponed. Otherwise, we will end up with the same time-bombs we face with council taxes.
Total value of UK residential property is something like 6 trillion pounds. 0.5% tax/year could raise 30 billion on residential property. On the average 200k home it would be £1,000 a year, on £85/month. It will hurt land speculators a lot. Those country estates will also get hammered?
Possible social effects (speculating)... I could easily imagine a shift back to intergenerational living arrangements. The grandparents moving in with the parents...
But it could be phased in and council tax gradually removed. The rents will change also. Tenants benefit from reduced CT. Landlords pay LVT. Rents will go up to compensate.
Phasing-in is crucial. Any change where there are winners or losers is politically dynamite.
I think significant property taxation - in some form - is inevitable over the coming years.
The tax avoiding bots are going to continue eating into income tax receipts and we have to figure out a way to fund the baby boomers retirement/health/social care somehow.
Unless we find another north sea oil, or something - chancellors (blue, red and/or yellow) will have no option but to take aim at property. LVT is one option. Social care levy is another.
The era of (largely) tax-free property ownership and house price gains could well be over.
'twas fun (for some) while it lasted.
I was born 30 years too late.
Absolutely agree. It should be gradually phased in - which means the sooner we start the better. Land value tax explained here:
There has to be a cross-party agreement and introduced in one parliament for a start in the next. Also maybe tapered in the first few years.
This could be one way of taking care of our perennial problem about what to do with buy-to-let properties.
This could be a runner if it is generally agreed. However, a revaluation has to be built-in which could not be cancelled or postponed. Otherwise, we will end up with the same time-bombs we face with council taxes.
It would need an enforcement mechanism and a government with big enough balls (or enough political capital) to break any boycott.
Part of the reason why we tax income so heavily isn't because it's right, or fair. It's because it's so damn easy for the chancellor to collect.
Finding a property owner and getting him to write a cheque every year is a little more difficult.
This has another great advantage. All those absentee landlords and offshore company owners come into the net.
But again, gradual phase-in of LVT, and gradual phase-out of CT is workable.
People who spout on about Land value taxes are no different to people who go on about fiat currencies, the gold standard or the monetarists of old. Crazed monomaniacs who have phul proof schemes and plans that idiots in power can not see value in. due no doubt to the power of the illumanati etc etc.
The two big problems of LVT are.
a. People go on how LVT will be more efficient for the economy, that cash poor people will sell up to the cash rich, who will develop more expensive land near city centres and transport nodes into blocks of flats and offices etc. Thereby producing a more housing near where people want to live etc etc,
This is sonehow supposed to pass unoticed by the populace, when thedrive for middleclass democracy has been the protection of the value of their home, from green belt legislation , basically all planing restrictions, environmental legislation, how can one pay a tax if their are restrictions placed on maximising said tax.
Then of course there is arguement of valuation, what the improved and unimproved value is, what government restrictions on land development change your ability to pay etc.
Imagine the valuation disputes.
Now remember that council tax rates are still set on valuations from the 1990's. Politicians get the hive from just thinking about it and the poll tax the last time anyone made a change to local taxes,
Now we get to it's even biggest problem. Land taxes are not based on your ability to pay. Taxes are either based on either income, or you must make a decision to buy somerthing or an unavoidable change.
So VAT, Stamp duty of death duties.
But land tax is not like that , it is like council tax in so far you sort of pay more, the more expensive your house is.
In it's pure form quite substantial sums are expected to be paid, this burden is reduced b slashing all other taxes, but as with all tax xhanges the losers scream the loudest and their would be some very big losers. For starters all those old people in high value properties but on smallish pensions, so grandpa your not allowed to stay in the family home, you got to move to some where cheap and undesireable our we well take all your familes wealth away!
We just saw the screams over some mild changes over social care. If this came in Cities would be on fire, certainly plenty of politicians would be.
No, land taxes are easiest to collect as there is no way the asset can be hidden. You either pay, or the Government takes and sells the land to get their money. Income tax is easier to avoid.
The problem as always is that the middle/upper middle classes who have paid higher levels of income tax will not accept having to pay higher levels on tax on the wealth they have accumulated as well. It is the problem we face in a system where we try and exempt such a large percentage of the population from any financial liability for their decisions - hence why someone like Corbyn can thrive. Why not vote for looney spending if you never have to pay for any of it?
UK military involvement abroad increase the risk of terrorism - Survation
Agree 46% Disagree 14% Makes no difference 30% DK 10%
Across all parties, all age groups and all regions.
But useless without the follow up question: does that make it the wrong thing to do?
Useless in what sense? It's not a referendum on whether we should bomb France; it's presumably intended to tell us if voters find Jezza's contention outrageous or even wrong.
Comments
This is worse than the Tories social care policy (which I opposed).
My parents aren't rich and don't deserve to see their council tax potentially treble which according to the Telegraph could happen.
I knew I wasn't voting Labour, but I live in a marginal and this potential tax makes me re-think about where my vote could go.
Those are all bad for Labour in case you're wondering - 16 - 19% lead for Tories.
Come on you lib dems,tell us what you really think of Tim ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAH87qyfEDE
I think there is one thing can unite both Tories and Corbynistas here tonight - LET'S ALL LAUGH AT THE LIMP DIMS!!
There's a significant UKIP vote in Bristol NW and the Conservatives did win the Mayoral elections there last month. Still its a 14/1 shot on Betfair if you fancy it.
Bury North again has a big UKIP vote and its on the edge of the conurbation, in many ways its more of a Lancashire constituency than that of Greater Manchester.
He looked quite unwell...
Tell me that there's no chance that they are getting in. I had a feeling that they (McDonnell in particular) regard anyone with a mortgage as basically the 'elite' and 'rich', but this confirms it. They are being vague for a reason.
Labour needs to be rid of anyone who calls themselves a 'Marxist' and have someone sane in there. And Corbynistas on Twitter keep on telling people 'don't worry they'll only tax people over 80k'.
As for if there is a chance they could get in...not no chance. Technically. But to even get to Lab plurality would require an awful lot.
Probably best to avoid voters.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k.
0% tax = -£0k
100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k
Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K.
5% tax = -5k
100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k
Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
Values would readjust downwards.
Significantly.
http://connielane.smugmug.com/Other/West-Wing/i-6W6XGPZ/0/O/713-canthugdonna.gif
The recent polls have suggested that Labour's rise in voteshare has been disproportionately concentrated in the North, Wales and to some extent in the Midlands (i.e. where their previously vulnerable seats largely are), while being more stable in the South, London and Scotland -- thus making for a more "efficient" Labour vote distribution.
'Gee' said Yossarian, 'thats some tax that tax 22'
The effect of LVT on land prices is more ambiguous. The first-order effect is a reduction in price, as you would expect. But if LVT leads to reduction in other taxes, or increased investment, this can cause land prices to rise.
Iain Martin for Reaction - 10 reasons I miss David Cameron
If the tories just discovered this ferengi print in labours manifesto where were the journalists all this time?
If the tories have known about it for a bit its interesting timing to push it out now. Quite a dead cat.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky 2h2 hours ago
Most economists rather like idea of a land tax instead of council tax. Then again, most economists have little grasp of what wins elections
Homeowners have become (always were?) the tory client vote.
Homeownership has been falling off a cliff.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3719079/National-crisis-home-ownership-hits-30-year-low-Runaway-prices-slow-wage-increases-mean-millions-unable-deposit.html
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
If May is returned with a good working majority, she needs to now put the country first and those grudges second as we head into those bruising Brexit negociations while she tries to juggle her domestic agenda. She needs a Cabinet not only full of talent able to do the day jobs at Ministerial level, but also a Cabinet she works with as a team and who can then effectively get out there in the TV/Radio studios and sell the Governments domestic and Brexit programme. May and her team don't just have a duty to her premiership, they have a duty to provide a Government record in Office and the platform for us to find the best Conservative successor who would be proud to inherit her shoes if she chooses not to run again for Office in 2022.
If a 5% tax caused a 10% crash in property values (still a considerable fall):
Current property value= 400k.
0% tax = -£0k
100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k
Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 360K.
5% tax = -18k
100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -7.2k
Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >25.2K/year or £2100 PCM
Shockingly few people seem to realise taking on a mortgage is a massive leveraged gamble on house prices.
After the crash in Ireland - and when a LVT was being proposed - some properties were down 90% from their peak.
There were a few extreme examples in the Irish midlands of 95%+, although I can't find them on google right now
Hitting those that do own their own homes, with or without a mortgage, this hard in their pocket is not a vote winner. While their actions might not effect the better off, it will effect the just/barely managing majority after ten years of financial belt tightening. You only have to look at the constituencies up here in Scotland where the SNP are now suddenly looking very vulnerable after the local elections and at this GE. So no, just maybe the economists don't know more about the electoral dynamics of this issue than Ed Conway thinks they do.
How to understand Angela Merkel’s comments about America and Britain
They were aimed at four distinct audiences"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/kaffeeklatsch/2017/05/what-s-brewing-germany
I think significant property taxation - in some form - is inevitable over the coming years.
The tax avoiding bots are going to continue eating into income tax receipts and we have to figure out a way to fund the baby boomers retirement/health/social care somehow.
Unless we find another north sea oil, or something - chancellors (blue, red and/or yellow) will have no option but to take aim at property. LVT is one option. Social care levy is another.
The era of (largely) tax-free property ownership and house price gains could well be over.
'twas fun (for some) while it lasted.
I was born 30 years too late.
Arguably the Lib Dems are in the same boat as well. Very thin front benches on all sides.
It should be gradually phased in - which means the sooner we start the better.
Land value tax explained here:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/11/economist-explains-0
Imo much fairer to tax this way than income tax.
This could be one way of taking care of our perennial problem about what to do with buy-to-let properties.
This could be a runner if it is generally agreed. However, a revaluation has to be built-in which could not be cancelled or postponed. Otherwise, we will end up with the same time-bombs we face with council taxes.
Survation poll details.
0.5% tax/year could raise 30 billion on residential property. On the average 200k home it would be £1,000 a year, on £85/month. It will hurt land speculators a lot. Those country estates will also get hammered?
Possible social effects (speculating)... I could easily imagine a shift back to intergenerational living arrangements. The grandparents moving in with the parents...
C 344, Lab 226, LD 3, UKIP 0, GRN 1, SNP 55, PC 3, NI 18
I did not tick the Scotland Prediction box as the Scottish sub-samples were meaningless.
The one SNP loss is to CON [ Borders ]. Therefore, you could add maybe another half-a-dozen to the Tories and 1 or 2 to Labour.
Part of the reason why we tax income so heavily isn't because it's right, or fair. It's because it's so damn easy for the chancellor to collect.
Finding a property owner and getting him to write a cheque every year is a little more difficult.
Phasing-in is crucial. Any change where there are winners or losers is politically dynamite.
But again, gradual phase-in of LVT, and gradual phase-out of CT is workable.
The two big problems of LVT are.
a. People go on how LVT will be more efficient for the economy, that cash poor people will sell up to the cash rich, who will develop more expensive land near city centres and transport nodes into blocks of flats and offices etc. Thereby producing a more housing near where people want to live etc etc,
This is sonehow supposed to pass unoticed by the populace, when thedrive for middleclass democracy has been the protection of the value of their home, from green belt legislation , basically all planing restrictions, environmental legislation, how can one pay a tax if their are restrictions placed on maximising said tax.
Then of course there is arguement of valuation, what the improved and unimproved value is, what government restrictions on land development change your ability to pay etc.
Imagine the valuation disputes.
Now remember that council tax rates are still set on valuations from the 1990's. Politicians get the hive from just thinking about it and the poll tax the last time anyone made a change to local taxes,
Now we get to it's even biggest problem. Land taxes are not based on your ability to pay. Taxes are either based on either income, or you must make a decision to buy somerthing or an unavoidable change.
So VAT, Stamp duty of death duties.
But land tax is not like that , it is like council tax in so far you sort of pay more, the more expensive your house is.
In it's pure form quite substantial sums are expected to be paid, this burden is reduced b slashing all other taxes, but as with all tax xhanges the losers scream the loudest and their would be some very big losers. For starters all those old people in high value properties but on smallish pensions, so grandpa your not allowed to stay in the family home, you got to move to some where cheap and undesireable our we well take all your familes wealth away!
We just saw the screams over some mild changes over social care. If this came in Cities would be on fire, certainly plenty of politicians would be.
Agree 46%
Disagree 14%
Makes no difference 30%
DK 10%
Across all parties, all age groups and all regions.
The problem as always is that the middle/upper middle classes who have paid higher levels of income tax will not accept having to pay higher levels on tax on the wealth they have accumulated as well. It is the problem we face in a system where we try and exempt such a large percentage of the population from any financial liability for their decisions - hence why someone like Corbyn can thrive. Why not vote for looney spending if you never have to pay for any of it?
..from electiondata...
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?