Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Timak

Land Value Tax

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/26/land-value-tax-labour-party

Today I am setting out a plan for a radical reform of the tax system. At its heart is a land value tax (LVT) – an idea so old-Labour it can be traced back to Thomas Paine. But it is also a plan that draws on the best instincts of New Labour.

The LVT, an annual tax on the market rental value of land, would allow for the abolition of stamp duty – a tax on the aspirations of young people to put down roots and get on in life.

In this way, it puts aspirational socialism into practice – a philosophy that combines the best of old Labour and the best of New Labour, where collective action helps all people be the best they can be. It captures mainstream Labour opinion in a way that old Labour or New Labour never truly did. And that is why it is right for this time.

Aspirational socialism can move Labour beyond the stale debates of recent years – and has answers to the biggest challenges we face as a society.

The way we care for older people has all the worst characteristics of US healthcare. People are left to fend for themselves in a cruel system where the most vulnerable pay the most.

So we need a reform true to our socialist roots – a population-wide national care service. By protecting people's savings and homes, we speak to their aspiration to give the generations coming behind a better life.

The tax plan I am putting forward shows how aspirational socialism can speak to the country. By abolishing inheritance tax, we clear the way to build public support for a progressive 10% hypothecated care levy on all estates.

These are radical and far-reaching ideas because I believe Labour has got to get back into the business of big and bold change, rather than the incremental steps that characterised our last years of government. It is only by giving our members a vision of how Labour values can shape this century as we did the last that we lift their hearts and reinvigorate our party.

So David Miliband was wrong this week to warn that radical tax reforms of this kind are a retreat to a Labour comfort zone. Instead, the comfort zone we risk slipping into is the New Labour comfort zone that says minimal change and more of the same is the way to go.

We can no longer base our politics on the New Labour approach of trying the patience of Labour members on a daily basis. There is only so long that you can defy gravity and ask people to be relaxed about inequalities that made them Labour in the first place. Now, of all times, we must have the courage of our Labour convictions and set out a credible and principled alternative to the destructive path of the coalition.

It's time to lose New Labour's timidity in the face of tax and make a moral argument for it playing a bigger part in deficit reduction. It is fairer than sudden and deep spending cuts, which will leave vulnerable people without support and forever change the character of our public services. But, with LVT, we can support the vulnerable and protect public services while also taking away taxes that are a barrier to people in the bottom and middle thirds getting on in life – keeping in place what was important about New Labour.

We must keep other important New Labour changes too. When Tony Blair pledged Labour would be tough on crime, he spoke for millions who live in areas where people lose their liberties through fear of crime. So I disagree with Ed Miliband when he says that New Labour got it wrong on law and order.

I am standing in this race as I don't believe either of the two frontrunners fully represent what I would call mainstream Labour. As this race enters its final stage, the media are seeking to brand it as a two-horse race between New and old Labour. There are great risks for Labour here. First, it risks repeating old debilitating battles in our party. Second, it leaves mainstream Labour opinion unrepresented.

Public attitudes to fairness in pay and tax changed with the credit crisis. Aspirational socialism speaks not just to a majority in the Labour party but mainstream opinion in the country.

I am fighting to win this race as the voice of mainstream Labour and a different kind of Labour party. Not New Labour. Not old Labour. But true Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milli****s of them.

Who cares about the numbers? If Burnham can just get the idea into the mainstream debate, we have a result.

Most civilised people don't like the word 'Tax'. To sell it, he'll need to provide some figures. If most people can see they may be better off they might be interested. The biggest problem Labour have is trust.

Edited by Minos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was him and his buddies who ramped up stamp duty. :blink:

10% tax on ALL estates to replace inheritance tax? Hmmm so that's an actual increase in death duties for the lower paid and your new aspirational labour voters. Does not compute.

Sorry to say this to a fellow Manc, but you're a pill0ck Andy. If you want to tax the rich tax the fecking rich. The third way was always just spin and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was him and his buddies who ramped up stamp duty. :blink:

10% tax on ALL estates to replace inheritance tax? Hmmm so that's an actual increase in death duties for the lower paid and your new aspirational labour voters. Does not compute.

Sorry to say this to a fellow Manc, but you're a pill0ck Andy. If you want to tax the rich tax the fecking rich. The third way was always just spin and you know it.

The rich make money from speculation ie capital gains this needs to increase reflecting this type of unearned income, while income tax reduced to support workers.

Capital gains catches rich, business builders should have a compensatory rebate when cashing in thus encouraging business growth and risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, well... about time!

Andy Burnham has just gone up in my estimation.

EDIT: BTW, Millibland sounds more worried about losing out on the vote of the rentier class. Too many politicians say what they think the public wants to hear, rather than pitching and selling an idea which will improve life for the many.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was him and his buddies who ramped up stamp duty. :blink:

10% tax on ALL estates to replace inheritance tax? Hmmm so that's an actual increase in death duties for the lower paid and your new aspirational labour voters. Does not compute.

Sorry to say this to a fellow Manc, but you're a pill0ck Andy. If you want to tax the rich tax the fecking rich. The third way was always just spin and you know it.

Exactly, they are under instruction from the Elites

- coz all this would do is wipe out the smaller Farmers and Market Gardeners, putting more land into the hands of the richest Elites - the major shareholders of Land-holding companies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why it is combined with reducing inheritance tax though. What is the argument for this? Wouldn't the better choice be income tax, especially if they are trying to reduce the burden for the working man/woman*.

TBH, both income and inheritance tax should probably go, but I'd rather see the former go first, than the latter.

EDIT: To clarify, you are then shifting taxation from labour (productive) and shifting it to profits from rentals (not productive, just parasitical). This would help the majority of individuals and improve economy activity at the same time.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite like Andy Burnham. He seems genuine and very down to earth.

Andy "Censor the Internet" Burnham?

Just another Labour MP who did his bit to give themselves the ZanuLabour totalitarian image.

Edited by EUBanana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In June 2008 it was reported that Culture Secretary Andy Burnham had suggested the government should have a role in ensuring that content on the Internet met the same standards as that on television as "the boundaries between the two media blur". Burnham also raised the idea of warnings being applied to certain content on websites such as YouTube to help people "better navigate the internet". He referred to the Byron Review's March 2008 report, "Safer Children in a Digital World", saying that he thought people felt a "sense of risk and uncertainty about this world they are roaming". Burnham told journalists that he had an "open mind" about whether there was a need for a new Communications Act before the next General Election, indicating that his own preference was for smaller pieces of legislation as needed.[41]

On 26 September 2008, Burnham delivered a keynote speech at the Royal Television Society conference in London, in which he said that the government planned to crack down on the internet to "even up" the regulatory imbalance with television, saying that "a fear of the internet" had caused a loss of confidence that had robbed the TV industry of "innovation, risk-taking and talent sourcing" in programming.[42] He enlarged on his remarks in an interview published the following day in the Daily Telegraph, in which he said: "If you look back at the people who created the Internet they talked very deliberately about it being a space that governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now ... There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical." The article also suggested that Burnham was planning to negotiate with the Barack Obama administration "to draw up new international rules for English language websites" and that another idea being considered was "giving film-style ratings to individual websites".

For gods sake think of the children! And the poor luvvies at the BBC trying to earn an honest crust!

He's an absolute tw*t of the worst Labour control freak kind. One of the many reasons why I would at least entertain the notion of voting for any party other than the BNP or Labour.

As for his suggestion - this is all rather out of the blue, isn't it? Is this a suggestion based on deeply held convictions, or is this a suggestion based on "vote for meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!".

Edited by EUBanana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy "Censor the Internet" Burnham?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/3965051/Internet-sites-could-be-given-cinema-style-age-ratings-Culture-Secretary-says.html

I like to think he has good intentions but doesn't yet realise how the world really works. A bit like me before I came across this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats Burnham out of the Contest then :lol:

Which miliband, choices choices. Overgrown school prefect Ed, or inhuman android Dave.

Hows about Diane Abbott?

She would ensure no re-election to power for a generation........ :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, well... about time!

Andy Burnham has just gone up in my estimation.

What a pity the dopey eegit didn't open his mouth 13 years ago as Gordon Brown laid the foundation stones for wrecking the UK economy by freeing the banks to create the biggest credit bubble in history.

Andy Burnham, what a guy! House prices doubling didn't trouble him, tripling didn't even raise an eyebrow - even the quadrupling of the price of the rows of terraced houses in Labour heartlands didn't worry him. Hey who cares that a terraced house in a back street in Newcastle went from 13k in 1999 to 120k by 2007 - pricing ordinary people out of home ownership.

Who gave a damn eh? Andy blood Burnham?

Nah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to think he has good intentions but doesn't yet realise how the world really works. A bit like me before I came across this site.

He enlarged on his remarks in an interview published the following day in the Daily Telegraph, in which he said: "If you look back at the people who created the Internet they talked very deliberately about it being a space that governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now

No, I really don't think so, if he doesn't believe in spaces governments can't reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.