Lib Dems plan annual property tax levy.

lostinrates

Heard some more of this on the radio. Was gobsmaacked that the Lib dem person speaking said that some or many constituencies have no million poubd plus houses. Is that right? Is there a constituency that has not one £1 million pound house?

Also a thought that this leaves those who have many £100k houses (e.g. everybodies favourite andlords the wilsons) not paying ta on this basis if their own home is worth only £999 k!

The discussion of the SE was brushed away and frankly, it sounded like a discussion we might have on here: poorly thought through, lots of gaps left to close, and onesided.

purch

One question I have, is who will be deciding the value of the property, and how they would value it ??

If Macaque was the valuer, then only people with properties worth more than £ 2,000,000 would be liable to pay, in light of the 50% fall that is coming.

If Dopester valued them, nothing would be worth more than £ 33.27 1/2p so everyone would not pay.

If amcluesent was asked to value them , he'd assume that most houses would be smouldering ruins after the upcoming race riots, so again, no one would pay.

Of course, if Hamish McLoonish was the valuer, then everyone, even those still saving for their deposits would be liable !!!

lostinrates

purch wrote: »

One question I have, is who will be deciding the value of the property, and how they would value it ??

This is understand it, I heard.

It could be one fof three options.

1) current council ta valuations
2) new counil ta valuations
3) I forgot this one.

The idea is to fill in the time bewteen now and when they could bring in local income tax (at which point this would stop).
Pensioners wouldn't be thrown out of their homes. there would be exclusions, including those getting council tax benefit.

Really, we needed pastures to listen to the radio show. Thats all I remember.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

That's not the same thing as the state respecting property rights of course.

Most of Europe to the east of the Iron Curtain had strong, large states and little or no respect for private property.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that very few countries, once liberated from state mandated socialism chose to return when they had a choice that wasn't at the end of a gun.

The State is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for property rights.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The State is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for property rights.

That doesn't prove your initial point though does it.

Same with most socialist arguments, frankly. You kind get half way there and realise that you've fck'd it. A bit like with the next stage of the bank/economy bailouts.

michaels

Except on US talk radio!

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The State is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for property rights.

nearlynew

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/clegg-to-unveil-series-of-things-that-will-never%2c-ever-happen-200909212077/

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

That doesn't prove your initial point though does it.

Same with most socialist arguments, frankly. You kind get half way there and realise that you've fck'd it. A bit like with the next stage of the bank/economy bailouts.

I'm a little puzzled that you draw that conclusion. If the state is a necessary condition for property rights, then property rights cannot exist without the state. Unfortunately I cannot express this any simpler as I cannot type logical operands here.

The state backing property rights is generally considered to be something advocated by conservatives. But I am sure you know that really.

I'd be interested to know how you think you can have property rights without the rule of law, and the rule of law without the state.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I'd be interested to know how you think you can have property rights without the rule of law,

Dogs use pee rather than legal documants, to mark their territory.

mewbie_2

Lib Dems plan annual property tax levy.

I suppose the main point is that all the parties are talking about raising taxes and cutting spending. Normally they hide such things. It probably means we are in deep trouble.