the snap general election thread

posh*spice

Filo25 wrote: »

Without a monumental recovery in Scotland an overall majority for Labour is a pipedream.

Their only hope is to squeeze the Tories down to about 310 or lower, at which stage the Tories obvious lack of partners to govern with starts to become a problem (you are really only looking at DUP and UUP as reliable allies in the Commons)

Ruth Davidson has looked amazing! I'd have her as future leader of all the conservatives (not just scotland)

steampowered

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Council tax should be paid according to usage, a farmer has many acres of land, does not mean he is rich, and this would put up the price of food.

Agricultural land would usually be exempt.

Anyway, why are Labour denying this, call it whatever you will it is still a garden tax as people with gardens have more land.

Land value tax is a tax on the value of land. Not a tax on the amount of land. The land of a house with a big garden in the countryside is worth a lot less than the land of a flat in the city centre.

If you have a garden, you are already paying a garden tax. Your garden is taken account when determining what the value of your property would have been in 1991, which is what determines the council tax band you are in.

Don't forget the last thing labour want is aspiration, people wanting to better themselves, cant have that.

Your hysterical analysis exemplifies everything that is wrong with our political system.

The Labour manifesto says simply says that council tax and business rates would be reviewed and a consultation held. Governments publish white papers and have reviews all the time. A land value tax would simply be one of the options considered in the consultation.

Council tax was an emergency response to poll tax needing to be abolished in quick order - you can't tell me that a system which quite literally relies on the imagined value of your property in 1991 is a good system. It is a pretty bad system, I don't see how any fair-minded person of any political persuasion could oppose the system being properly looked at and a consultation held.

I'd also point out that LVT is not a left-wing idea. It was supported by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Winston Churchill. No harm having a consultation on it (and all the other options for reforming council tax - which is a pretty broken system).

kabayiri

steampowered wrote: »

...
Council tax was an emergency response to poll tax needing to be abolished in quick order - you can't tell me that a system which quite literally relies on the imagined value of your property in 1991 is a good system. It is a pretty bad system, I don't see how any fair-minded person of any political persuasion could oppose the system being properly looked at and a consultation held.
...

Labour commissioned a system to re-rate 24 million properties in E+W back in 2005.

It cost millions of pounds to develop, involving work planned for 400+ regional offices.

Just a week into live trials and they bottled it. The whole thing was mothballed. The money was wasted.

It shows the lack of competence Labour has when it comes to these big projects and plans.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Arklight wrote: »

Is there some reason why people who own lots of valuable land shouldn't pay more tax? .

Like all those dairy and other farmers you see who get a few pence a pint and live on the edge? They can plainly afford to pay more tax (not)

You also seem to be under the illusion that the rich pay no tax and the poor pay it all?

ukcarper

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Taking a look down my Facebook and Twitter feed, a lot of the time yes.

There's a lot more talk about the young voting 'smart', whilst among the over 50s there seems to be some talk about not turning out to vote at all.

I've also heard a number of times 'I will be voting, but not for the Conservatives', once from someone in their 60s and once from someone in their 80s, just in the last few days.

I will probably not vote on Thursday first time for years, but I'm a long term Labour voter.

POPPYOSCAR

Arklight wrote: »

Is there some reason why people who own lots of valuable land shouldn't pay more tax?

Less than 1% of the population own half the rural land in England and Wales. A literal tax free land grab by the upper classes.

As horrific as this sounds to the Right, at some point someone is going to have to pay tax. The difference between Labour and the Tories is that Labour thinks that people with money should pay it, rather than people who are poor.

What do you mean by lots?

We live on 6 acres of greenbelt which about half is woodland.

We are not wealthy and would not be able to afford this tax.

We would probably have to sell up to someone who can afford to pay this tax.

Is that fair?

Arklight

Conrad wrote: »

I bet you a Liquorice Sherbet Labour will split / a new progressive party will emerge soon after the GE.


That Labour ex soldier bloke could lead it.


Mind you Corbyn seems to have done well, so I'm not saying the Blairites will be correct if they start up a new party.

A month ago you'd have been right. I don't think there are many who will follow a Blairite pied piper down Free Market Alley anymore though.

The Blairites have spent the last two years slandering a leader that most Labour supporters are now fully behind.

If they'd spent those two years doing their jobs, rather than looking for ways to repeatedly undermine their boss and the party membership, we would be on course for a win on Thursday.

System

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kysDz7rRcdM

Game over.

Arklight

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Like all those dairy and other farmers you see who get a few pence a pint and live on the edge? They can plainly afford to pay more tax (not)

You also seem to be under the illusion that the rich pay no tax and the poor pay it all?

You appear to be conflating struggling dairy farmers in Wilshire with people living in mansions in Surrey. A land tax taxes people by the value of their land, not the amount of it.

Your dairy farmer would struggle a lot less under a Labour government than a Tory one. He or she would have access to loans from a national investment bank to develop his struggling business and tax breaks to offset the cost of wages that he had to pay while he was growing.

If he was sick, there would be an NHS for him to use, if he had kids there would be a school that isn't going to lose £898 per child of funding for him to send his kids to. If those kids were of university age they would go for nothing, rather than incurring £50k in debt.

If he couldn't work through ill health there would be disability benefits for him and he would be treated with dignity rather than with heartlessness and disrespect as the Tories treat the vulnerable in their appalling PIP assessments that are driving people to suicide.

If God forbid he lost his farm and had to sell it there would be secure council housing for him and his family to move into, rather than a council bedsit or the streets.

Arklight

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

What do you mean by lots?

We live on 6 acres of greenbelt which about half is woodland.

We are not wealthy and would not be able to afford this tax.

We would probably have to sell up to someone who can afford to pay this tax.

Is that fair?

Again, a land tax is taxation calculated against the value of the unimproved land not the amount of it that you own.

If you don't have many assets you won't pay much tax.

How is that not fair?