Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
R K

Ft Editorial - Mansion Tax Doesn't Go Far Enough.

Recommended Posts

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94fa6f84-43d0-11e4-8abd-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3E81TgOoB

Cant post obviously, but gist is that Mansion Tax isn't ambitous enough.

FT editorial backing full blown land value taxes, or increasing the regressive council tax bands by adding new bands (which mansion tax partly does).

However, since it's the FT it's clear why they favour local taxes over mansion taxes and that's because it means the local council keeps the funding. So Kensington & Chelsea and other London councils would keep the loot, rather than the Treasury, and they ain't going to use it to fund the NHS nationally.

So in essence their proposal will simply ensure that London wealth remains where the FT would like it to remain - in London.

But at least they're on the side of increasing housing/land taxes, contrary to the Tory policy of opposing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I hold a freehold why should there be a tax on the land?

If you pay groundrent why should I then get another charge like a property tax?

I think the funding of local councils should be via a local income tax, however I'm sure this would just ensure the rich inhabited villages away from the riff raff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I hold a freehold why should there be a tax on the land?

If you pay groundrent why should I then get another charge like a property tax?

I think the funding of local councils should be via a local income tax, however I'm sure this would just ensure the rich inhabited villages away from the riff raff.

I'll let one of the LVT proponents, of which there are many on this site, explain the principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be extremely difficult for the Tories to resist the mansion tax. After all, the "bedroom tax" has been introduced to address the exact same problem - over-consumption.

If it is right to create a disincentive to consume more housing than you "need", then it is difficult to argue that the poor should be the ones to pay.

Arguments like, "It's a tax on London", "£2m is not very much these days", "Look, this 2 bed flat in Mayfair isn't a mansion" - and all the others the Tories and their cheerleaders are coming up with, aren't really going to cut it at election time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I hold a freehold why should there be a tax on the land?

If you pay groundrent why should I then get another charge like a property tax?

I think the funding of local councils should be via a local income tax, however I'm sure this would just ensure the rich inhabited villages away from the riff raff.

Indeed, redistributive taxes are for the little people ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be extremely difficult for the Tories to resist the mansion tax. After all, the "bedroom tax" has been introduced to address the exact same problem - over-consumption.

If it is right to create a disincentive to consume more housing than you "need", then it is difficult to argue that the poor should be the ones to pay.

Arguments like, "It's a tax on London", "£2m is not very much these days", "Look, this 2 bed flat in Mayfair isn't a mansion" - and all the others the Tories and their cheerleaders are coming up with, aren't really going to cut it at election time.

Saw that on Newsnight last night. Hilarious! Cognitive dissonance at its best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be extremely difficult for the Tories to resist the mansion tax. After all, the "bedroom tax" has been introduced to address the exact same problem - over-consumption.

If it is right to create a disincentive to consume more housing than you "need", then it is difficult to argue that the poor should be the ones to pay.

Arguments like, "It's a tax on London", "£2m is not very much these days", "Look, this 2 bed flat in Mayfair isn't a mansion" - and all the others the Tories and their cheerleaders are coming up with, aren't really going to cut it at election time.

Bedroom tax...ha.

A smaller subsidy you mean.

By your logic the government not paying me to use my car would be a 'tax'

Yes to LVT. No to any form of landlord/housing benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be extremely difficult for the Tories to resist the mansion tax. After all, the "bedroom tax" has been introduced to address the exact same problem - over-consumption.

If it is right to create a disincentive to consume more housing than you "need", then it is difficult to argue that the poor should be the ones to pay.

Arguments like, "It's a tax on London", "£2m is not very much these days", "Look, this 2 bed flat in Mayfair isn't a mansion" - and all the others the Tories and their cheerleaders are coming up with, aren't really going to cut it at election time.

They should just call it a Very-Expensive-House-or-Flat Tax, and have done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bedroom tax...ha.

A smaller subsidy you mean.

By your logic the government not paying me to use my car would be a 'tax'

Yes to LVT. No to any form of landlord/housing benefit.

Erm... Excuse me, it's not my logic - I put "bedroom tax" in quotes because that is what it is referred to (rather than what it literally is).

Whether you agree with the bedroom tax/ spare room subsidy (or whatever you want to call it), or whether you disagree with it, it should be obvious that it's purpose is to put a financial disincentive on the over consumption of housing.

In that sense it is no different to the proposed "mansion tax", except for who bears the cost.

Edited by Bear Goggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be extremely difficult for the Tories to resist the mansion tax. After all, the "bedroom tax" has been introduced to address the exact same problem - over-consumption.

If it is right to create a disincentive to consume more housing than you "need", then it is difficult to argue that the poor should be the ones to pay.

Arguments like, "It's a tax on London", "£2m is not very much these days", "Look, this 2 bed flat in Mayfair isn't a mansion" - and all the others the Tories and their cheerleaders are coming up with, aren't really going to cut it at election time.

It's not a bedroom tax it's a baby bonus. People are only penalised if they haven't bred enough future taxpayers to fill their bedrooms. The number of births from older women is increasing as they start popping out the future taxpayers that the governbankment needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94fa6f84-43d0-11e4-8abd-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3E81TgOoB

Cant post obviously, but gist is that Mansion Tax isn't ambitous enough.

FT editorial backing full blown land value taxes, or increasing the regressive council tax bands by adding new bands (which mansion tax partly does).

However, since it's the FT it's clear why they favour local taxes over mansion taxes and that's because it means the local council keeps the funding. So Kensington & Chelsea and other London councils would keep the loot, rather than the Treasury, and they ain't going to use it to fund the NHS nationally.

So in essence their proposal will simply ensure that London wealth remains where the FT would like it to remain - in London.

But at least they're on the side of increasing housing/land taxes, contrary to the Tory policy of opposing them.

A Mansun tax can only disappoint U.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I hold a freehold why should there be a tax on the land?

The core philosophy behind LVT is that a country's land is the collective inheritance of all its citizens, therefore those with the will/means to have exclusive use of some of it should compensate those who don't/cant on an on going basis.

This is pretty much the only alternative to the current system in which land ownership gets more concentrated in fewer hands over time.

Edited by goldbug9999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm... Excuse me, it's not my logic - I put "bedroom tax" in quotes because that is what it is referred to (rather than what it literally is).

Whether you agree with the bedroom tax/ spare room subsidy (or whatever you want to call it), or whether you disagree with it, it should be obvious that it's purpose is to put a financial disincentive on the over consumption of housing.

In that sense it is no different to the proposed "mansion tax", except for who bears the cost.

Oh it is...I work hard I buy a large gaff, It's my house, I pay VAT, Corp tax, Income tax, Ni, Capital gains and Commercial rates on business properties within which people earn a living and the cycle starts again. So if I want a 16 bed house and i live in one room on thats my choice, if you want a three bedroom house and there are only two of you get a flat and give it up to someone who needs it, which I am quite happy to pay for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm... Excuse me, it's not my logic - I put "bedroom tax" in quotes because that is what it is referred to (rather than what it literally is).

Whether you agree with the bedroom tax/ spare room subsidy (or whatever you want to call it), or whether you disagree with it, it should be obvious that it's purpose is to put a financial disincentive on the over consumption of housing.

In that sense it is no different to the proposed "mansion tax", except for who bears the cost.

and as I say defining a tax as broadly as either not or offering financial incentive, any government involvement or absence can be described as one.

OK its not your logic, but its buying into media dumbing down of the English language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much the only alternative to the current system in which land ownership gets more concentrated in fewer hands over time.

I disagree.

If you want to stop people 'hoarding' land or property you simply create a "multiple property tax", so those who own just one property are exempt, and those who own multiple properties are taxed according to how many they own.

With LVT, someone who purchased a single freehold house in the early 1970s in an area now deemed of value, would be taxed for the LPI/HPI they had very little part in, even though they might be a 'fair player'.

According to the utterly useless mansion tax, anyone who owns a single property over the threshold is taxed, but if you own 900 properties at £250k each, the mansion tax will not discourage that. The mansion tax will just annoy a 'good' wealthy person. We don't need a wealth tax, or even a land value tax, we need a 'property hoarding' tax. Buying 900 properties is bad behaviour.

Just because the Tories implemented the 'bedroom tax' it doesn't make it okay for Labour to implement a mansion tax. Although they both have something in common in that neither will solve any problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and as I say defining a tax as broadly as either not or offering financial incentive, any government involvement or absence can be described as one.

OK its not your logic, but its buying into media dumbing down of the English language.

I think - correct me if I'm wrong - that the reduction in Housing Benefit is potentially higher than the room rate for the additional room(s) as it's a standardized percentage reduction rather than a calculation of the difference between local rents +/- room(s). It seems unlikely that the same percentage reduction would be accurate for all rental markets, in which case some people are likely to end up with a reduction in Housing Benefit that exceeds the cost of their additional room(s). Tax is from the latin verb taxare - to censure, to reproach (amongst other things) - so its application to a reprimand such as this seems like a reasonable usage. Things can be taxing without having to involve taxes after all ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

If you want to stop people 'hoarding' land or property you simply create a "multiple property tax", so those who own just one property are exempt, and those who own multiple properties are taxed according to how many they own.

With LVT, someone who purchased a single freehold house in the early 1970s in an area now deemed of value, would be taxed for the LPI/HPI they had very little part in, even though they might be a 'fair player'.

According to the utterly useless mansion tax, anyone who owns a single property over the threshold is taxed, but if you own 900 properties at £250k each, the mansion tax will not discourage that. The mansion tax will just annoy a 'good' wealthy person. We don't need a wealth tax, or even a land value tax, we need a 'property hoarding' tax. Buying 900 properties is bad behaviour.

Just because the Tories implemented the 'bedroom tax' it doesn't make it okay for Labour to implement a mansion tax. Although they both have something in common in that neither will solve any problems.

The whole point of a proper Land Value Tax is to only tax resource use not effort. So no income tax whatsoever, no VAT, no capital gains, no corporation tax, no council tax, no stamp duty, just the LVT (and maybe fuel duty as, let's face it, oil is much more finite than land). In the light of that I don't think there's any problem with someone who owned only one home paying LVT as they'd essentially be able to choose what level of tax they wanted to pay by where they wanted to live and what size of property they wanted to live in. Also remember that LVT is on the land and the landowner not the building or the renter, so people could massively cut their personal tax bill by buying a flat in a mansion block or could choose to opt out of direct taxation entirely by renting. It essentially makes involvement in the taxation system a choice, not an obligation: individuals and companies choose how much natural resources to take up and are taxed according to those choices. This automatically places a heavy tax burden on property hoarders and companies operating out of multiple prime locations that otherwise use accountants to get around needlessly-complex taxation systems (Starbucks comes to mind) that are currently under-taxed, thereby allowing a general LVT rate that would lower the tax burden for the, currently overtaxed, average family. And while taxing resource use naturally encourages people to reduce their use of resources where the benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the burden of taxation, removing all taxation on effort and industry does the opposite as the firm knowledge that all resultant income will be yours outright naturally encourages endeavour.

Of course no one in government, or likely to be so, wants to implement a proper Land Value Tax in replacement of all other taxes (the Green party are advocating this, or something close to it, but with only one MP they really don't have much sway) so the point is rather mute right now, but it is a good idea in principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With LVT, someone who purchased a single freehold house in the early 1970s in an area now deemed of value, would be taxed for the LPI/HPI they had very little part in, even though they might be a 'fair player'.

I'm not seeing the problem - if they "had very little part" in causing the value to increase then why should they expect to accrue the benefits of that happening. Wider society/economy created the benefit and the benefit should socialised back to it. In addition to that the person gains from the socialisation of other people paying LVT.

Edited by goldbug9999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh it is...I work hard I buy a large gaff, It's my house, I pay VAT, Corp tax, Income tax, Ni, Capital gains and Commercial rates on business properties within which people earn a living and the cycle starts again. So if I want a 16 bed house and i live in one room on thats my choice, if you want a three bedroom house and there are only two of you get a flat and give it up to someone who needs it, which I am quite happy to pay for.

.website fail.

Edited by Bear Goggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.