Lib Dems plan annual property tax levy.

bo_drinker

As I tried to tell Jeremy Vine they are the also rans, always have been always will be. Clegg was on their briefly today avoiding the important question, he will be another also ran with all the rest. Waste of time.

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

Couldn't resist dropping in here to see what people thought of the LDs plan. Glad to see wisdom of the MSE crowd greater than that of the LDs.

Regarding the state and property rights, I remember a lecture at Harvard where the lecturer pointed out that in many developing countries property rights are in fact a mechanism for taxation by the state, and serve the state more than the citizens. (I'm not arguing against property rights in the UK - obviously the economic/cultural norms in the UK are heavily dependent on them.)

Oh - and in for a penny in for a pound, with another political point - I thought the calls for the Attorney General to resign were a bit heavy-handed; after all how many of us can be certain that we haven't engaged in business/contract with an illegal immigrant or other organisation that is in someway illegal? (Unless we are huge companies/governments with unlimited due diligence budgets). But then I discovered that she was responsible for ensuring ignorance in such an instance was no defence. So she should go, maybe not for the law-breaking itself, nor even the hypocrisy, but for the stupidity of bad laws.

Anyhow - just popping in. Hope you are all well - even Sir Humphrey.;)

lostinrates

Hello Nick!

chopperharris

Like many have said i think the ld has lost the plot.

Those with 1 million pound plus houses are a small element , and will have wealth advisers , this is how they can afford them in the first place.It will not create new homes by taxing the rich , which will not really affect house prices to affoadable levels for the great unwashed.

This is spin , appearing to look hard line on the rich , theres no other reason for it.It serves to show that you have the same two options at the polls for the voter , taxed under labour or taxed worse under tory.

However one of the posters has a better idea , new ct banding.If this was combined with a sliding scale for multi property ownership...including a higher tax for btl'ers then this would work far better.

However from what I have seen of the parliament itself lots of these politicians would get a hammering on tax.Do we really think that they will vote in such taxation?I dont think so.

Not so long ago they voted against prevention of dodgy parliamentary expense claims and want to close up them even being found out....all this despite the public spectacle of appearing simpathetic to the outcry of the public.

We are sheep , govt is our shepard , the only difference is that we pay the farmer to sell us to the butchers.

nickmason

Regarding rebanding CT - some innovative councils (it almost goes without saying that they are conservative these days) have effectively done something quite smart. The government sets the relative levels of each band; while a council can set the absolute level, they aren't supposed to be able to change the relative charges on a band A compared with a band D, it's set by a series of ratios.

The innovative idea has been to give back cash to all council tax payers. On the face of it this seems daft - robbing Peter to pay Paul. But in fact what it does it makes the burden on residents of higher valued houses relatively greater. Smart, I'd say. Combine it with freezing council tax for all, and that's a pretty good deal.

(By the way - not all councils can do this - legally they can, but they need the financial headroom that government's funding doesn't always allow).

lostinrates

Being discussed on QT now.

lostinrates

total, total disconnect. They are saying how heinous for th million pouned terrace house owners in London.....not even the many, million pound flats in London, or anywhere else in the ountry.
I'm stll keeo to know if there is a constitueny in this ountry with NO million pound properties....anyone know?

dave4545454

the lib dems are the only fair party of the main 3.

cons/lab are just interested in increasing the difference between the rich and poor

dopester

dave4545454 wrote: »

the lib dems are the only fair party of the main 3.

cons/lab are just interested in increasing the difference between the rich and poor

Thatcher fended that off quite well in the House of Commons to the Lib Dems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Sorry, but I've had quite enough of the socialist boneheads, with their tripartite financial meddling, championing of innovative financial solutions to Lehmans and the like, and borrowing and spending under a system which encouraged deadly levels of debt.

And the Liberal Dem wannabees who's justice would see to have us all poor (imo).

Mr Speaker all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979, but what the Honourable Member is saying, is that he would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.

That way you will never create the wealth for better social services as we have. And what a policy. Yes. He would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy. Yes it came out. He didn't intend it to, but he did.

Generali

dopester wrote: »

Thatcher fended that off quite well in the House of Commons to the Lib Dems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Sorry, but I've had quite enough of the socialist boneheads, with their tripartite financial meddling, championing of innovative financial solutions to Lehmans and the like, and borrowing and spending under a system which encouraged deadly levels of debt.

And the Liberal Dem wannabees who's justice would see to have us all poor (imo).

I'd forgotten what a great Parliamentary speaker Mrs Thatcher was, albeit helped by some political pygmies on the benches opposite.

It reminds me of a quote from some British toff or another that supported Communism and went to see communism for himself. He was appalled and on his return to the UK told his Comrades, "I support this cause so that you can dress like me not so I have to dress like you!"

All the well off non-oil producing countries of the world are basically capitalist liberal democracies. China will never be rich until they free their people. India until they free the economy.