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

cepheus

The Tory party, busily promoting a bedroom tax for the poor, will always oppose a land value tax for property owners.'It's unfair' they cry!

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

dryhat wrote: »

For anyone interested in this sort of thing, respected economist Fred Harrison has long been a supporter of such a move.

In this great video he explains what he calls "Ricardo'sLaw" ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZkfmY1PMng


(only 7 mins long and well worth a watch)

If we could avoid tax by renting - we'd all rent! And put our money in the stock market...

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

PaulF81 wrote: »

Yep. Poor people will get to continue to gripe about how rough life is, despite forgetting life isn't a free ride for all.

That chip on your shoulder must be real heavy? Quite a burden I imagine?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Generali wrote: »

I actually think that a small wealth tax is reasonable, that a return to the old rates would be no bad thing. The Govt becoming a lot smaller in order for that to provide a substantial part of her financing would be even better.

And who got rid of Rates? Margaret Thatcher Cost her her job mind...

IveSeenTheLight

cepheus wrote: »

We should take the ridiculous excuse that such people can't afford to pay tax on a £2m+ home with the usual dismissal of the whining silver spoon class.

Regardless of where the line is drawn, unless it is linked to an adequate inflation linked escalator, the "real term" line reduces to impact far more.

When inheritance tax was issued, did anyone have concerns that it affected the majority of homeowners?

It may not be an issue for most now, but I foresee that it will increasingly impact more down the years.

cepheus

Let's take advice from Winston Churchill and Adam Smith: and let's get stuck into the real shirkers

They parasitise us from above. But landowners and the Tory party's idle rich are spared the fairest and simplest of taxes

In 1909 a dangerous subversive explained the issue thus. "Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived ... the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."

Who was this firebrand? Winston Churchill. As Churchill, Adam Smith and many others have pointed out, those who own the land skim wealth from everyone else, without exertion or enterprise. They "levy a toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry". A land value tax would recoup this toll.

Devon_Sailor

And how would you avoid a massive spike in the price of food as common farmers get stung for massive amounts of liquid cash, which they don't possess, annually, under your scheme?

Rgds

D_S

neverdespairgirl

cepheus wrote: »

The Tory party, busily promoting a bedroom tax for the poor, will always oppose a land value tax for property owners.'It's unfair' they cry!

#


That is partly the result of the sloppy thinking behind the term "bedroom tax".

It's not a tax. It's not even slightly like a tax. It's about a small reduction in the amount handed out by the state to some people.

antrobus

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

And how would you avoid a massive spike in the price of food as common farmers get stung for massive amounts of liquid cash, which they don't possess, annually, under your scheme?

Rgds

D_S

Presumably, as is currently the case, agricultural land would be exempt from this new-fangled-a-bit-short-on-the-actual-detail land tax that the OP has in mind.

The_Green_Man_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

#


That is partly the result of the sloppy thinking behind the term "bedroom tax".

It's not a tax. It's not even slightly like a tax. It's about a small reduction in the amount handed out by the state to some people.

A small reduction that most can ill afford and without any option for them to downsize to a smaller place because of the lack of suitable one bedroom properties. If the government want to reduce the amount of housing benefit then it should be upfront about it, not hide behind these sorts of schemes.