We need a land and wealth tax to replace income and transaction tax.

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

The Centre for Labour and Social Studies (Class) was established in 2012 by Unite the Union, GMB and the Institute of Employment Rights to act as a centre for left debate and discussion.

Not the Unite that's against better use of existing resources.

http://www.unitetheunion.org/campaigning/stopthebedroomtax/

antrobus

The Centre for Labour and Social Studies (Class) is only a "key think tank" in the eyes of Liberal Conspiracy. No one else has heard of it.

The document isn't a 'paper' it's a 'think piece' and consists of nothing more than one guy expressing the opinion that he thinks that LVT is a 'good idea'. There's no analysis, no research, no detail whatsover. I read it about a week ago, and concluded it wasn't worth mentioning.

cepheus

We need to collect revenue somehow. No wonder we are in deficit running a free health service whilst having such low taxes, particularly for high earners. The latest OECD figures prove this.

antrobus

On a more practical note, the Land Value Tax Bill (sponsor Caroline Lucas) has failed to make any progress in the Commons, and died a death last month.

cepheus

Very difficult due to the archaic system in the House, and when the powerful refuse to take it seriously.

CAROLINE LUCAS WRITES
"My Bill wasn’t discussed on Friday 26th April as it wasn’t a sitting day in the end. It was down on the Parliamentary papers for that date as a way of keeping the Bill ‘live’ for as long as possible. However, I knew that it wouldn’t have any chance of actually being debated. The Bill has now fallen as the Parliamentary Session has formally ended.

"It is confusing and this place does work in a ridiculous way! I have been trying to make the best use that I can of the limited mechanisms available to backbench MPs to help get the debate on LVT going and I think we’ve had some success in that. I’ll keep taking up the opportunities that come up to press the Treasury on this – they really shouldn’t be ignoring this issue or the likes of the IFS Mirrlees Review and the OECD."

http://www.landvaluetax.org/

antrobus

Of course, Lucas's bill was ever so slighly disingenuous, as it was effectively asking the Coalition parties to commit electoral suicide. And i find it rather amusing that Lucas is 'confused' by Parlaiment. Perhaps she's in the wrong job.:)

adouglasmhor

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Property value alone is an indiscriminate tool. People would merely sell up and move out of London.

Causing an increase in supply,therefore the possiblity of a drop in price, therefore less properties over the trigger level. Sort of win (I think - I should really try a model to see if that is how it would/wouldn't work).

cepheus

antrobus wrote: »

Of course, Lucas's bill was ever so slighly disingenuous, as it was effectively asking the Coalition parties to commit electoral suicide. And i find it rather amusing that Lucas is 'confused' by Parlaiment. Perhaps she's in the wrong job.:)

It's Political suicide asking rich landowners and property developers to pay more,whilst an austerity policy for the lower and middle classes isn't? You will have to explain that to me.

It seems the most disingenuous acts going through Parliament at present are those trying to remove us from the EU on the pretext of immigration. What's the real reason behind this? Europe has tougher employment and environmental protection laws and would introduce taxes for useless paper shuffling, otherwise known as the financial transaction tax. This means most workers would get better job security and the idle rich might have to pay a fair share for a change.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

It's Political suicide asking rich landowners and property developers to pay more? Whilst an Austerity policy for the lower and middle classes isn't? You will have to explain that to me....

For the same reason that the Labour Government of 1997-2010 didn't even think about revaluing properties for Council Tax purposes in England.

Any change in the basis of valuation for a property tax involves gainers and losers. The boos from the loosers will always drown out the cheers from the gainers. And the boos are always deafening, because property taxes are always unpopular, because the're one of the few taxes that people actually pay. (*)

That's why whenever someone uses a phrase like it would"take political courage" to introduce LVT, what they really mean is "commit electoral suicide".

Besides, you're just making the assumption that a LVT would involve "asking rich landowners and property developers to pay more". There is no particular reason why a LVT would have that effect.

(* As in actually see the money go out of their bank account. As opposed to being deducted before their get their money, or being wrapped up in the payment so they can't see it.)

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

Very difficult due to the archaic system in the House, and when the powerful refuse to take it seriously.

Having witnessed her performances on several occasions. She is someone who cannot be taken seriously. As she adds nothing to constructive debate.