Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Clarky Cat

Guardian: Stop Whacking Pensions And Benefits – Hit Property Instead

Recommended Posts

Where is the biggest pot of untaxed money in Britain that Osborne could raid? It must be the vast gains some people have made in property. Is it right to place ever greater tax burdens on working people, when the UK has built up (on paper at least) £5 trillion in mostly untaxed property wealth?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/mar/12/property-sale-profit-capital-gains-tax-

Interesting to note that even the USA has CGT on property sales

I'm not entirely sure it's the best way to go about things - maybe an annual LVT is better.

What is amusing is reading the cognitive dissonance in the comments - tax the rich more (apparently those earning above £42k, given the support for pension tax changes), but don't tax me more (I'm not rich, I just have a £1 million house,..). Surely a tax on wealth is fairer than a tax on income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/mar/12/property-sale-profit-capital-gains-tax-

Interesting to note that even the USA has CGT on property sales

The USA has fifty-odd states, each with its own tax regime. Some of them having quite high property taxes[1] escaped the bubble of a decade ago.

Nice to see the Grauniad catching up with what should have happened at least 30 years ago, perhaps more.

[1] My colleague paying $5k/year tax on a $170k house no doubt helped keep the house at $170k rather than $500k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would also give a real incentive for pensioners rattling around in big family homes to downsize. Win-win.

Capital gains tax could do the opposite. Stay put to avoid paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxing unearned 'wealth' - and HPI is the formeost exponent of that - is the best of all evils taxation wise under the current system. However, its unlikely that'd be in any way redistributive with the troughers we have in charge of the purse strings.

Better still, outlaw the conditions for its creation in the first place. The only way to do that is to change the money system, kick out the parasites and remove any form of state prop or intervention. And that requires a collective awakening and education that'll take decades to implement. But it's one worth fighting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Champagne-Labour lot in their multi-million houses in Hampstead/Islington/Notting Hill etc. won't be mad keen on this.

Unless of course it was confined to bankers/other rich capitalists/evil Tories, and not applied to nice, right-thinking people like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Community charge could be a fixed percentage of the property value instead of the fixed bands that we have.

Kite flyers trying to sell would be constrained if purchasers knew that a certain percentage charge would attach to the property the moment it sold. Also all the other houses in the street would instantly suffer an increase in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CGT would be ok on people that try a flip but otherwise would just cause people to put off saling, which isn't going to help in the short run. LVT is the way to go. People who can, will pay it, people who can't will move!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should introduce CGT for main homes. They have no real competition at the moment from Labour and even if Labour were doing well, they are more likely to introduce some sort of property tax under Corbyn anyway. They are hitting the disabled now, why not the untaxed, not hard working property millionaires?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CGT would be ok on people that try a flip but otherwise would just cause people to put off saling, which isn't going to help in the short run. LVT is the way to go. People who can, will pay it, people who can't will move!

Move where? Why should I be forced out of a home just because I couldn't afford the land tax? And have to move the kids out of school? I couldn't afford to buy the house I'm in now nor could I afford to buy the first house I lived in.

I love the idea more tax is the solution. The answer is to turn off credit creation but the bank's make money by creating money. This is the problem that has over inflated prices. More tax does not solve the core problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[1] My colleague paying $5k/year tax on a $170k house no doubt helped keep the house at $170k rather than $500k.

Sure, but how does that help the cost of living/housing? $5k to the Gov/state is the same as $5k to the mortgage provider at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but how does that help the cost of living/housing? $5k to the Gov/state is the same as $5k to the mortgage provider at the end of the day.

It's $5k less he has to pay in taxes on productive activities, like hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxing unearned 'wealth' - and HPI is the formeost exponent of that - is the best of all evils taxation wise under the current system. However, its unlikely that'd be in any way redistributive with the troughers we have in charge of the purse strings.

Better still, outlaw the conditions for its creation in the first place. The only way to do that is to change the money system, kick out the parasites and remove any form of state prop or intervention. And that requires a collective awakening and education that'll take decades to implement. But it's one worth fighting for.

What do you mean by "unearned wealth"? The last 15 years or so has seen me excelling as an HPC frugalista (no i-frippery, city breaks, or fine dining for me), with the (successful) aim of having enough wonga to do something other than *work* all my life. Is that "unearned wealth"? I can tell you, it doesn't feel unearned.

Private accumulation of wealth seems a laudable aim. Earned leisure time. If governments remove that option - or make it hard for the non-zillionaires to achieve, then you're effectively enslaved. Work and pay tax and never accumulate. No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant LVT. CGT would just paralyse the market.

Given Ricardo's Theory of Rents, LVT makes economic sense to me.

However, I have major philosophical objections. If all land requires tax to be paid for its use then, given that all men have to stand and sleep somewhere, you can never be free.

On balance, I object to LVT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only fair taxes are those that are levied on activities or consumption that limit the opportunities of others to do so.

The only just taxes are those on pollution and resource use. IMO, govt has only two valid functions - protection of the environment and its resources for all generations and operation of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "unearned wealth"? The last 15 years or so has seen me excelling as an HPC frugalista (no i-frippery, city breaks, or fine dining for me), with the (successful) aim of having enough wonga to do something other than *work* all my life. Is that "unearned wealth"? I can tell you, it doesn't feel unearned.

Private accumulation of wealth seems a laudable aim. Earned leisure time. If governments remove that option - or make it hard for the non-zillionaires to achieve, then you're effectively enslaved. Work and pay tax and never accumulate. No thanks.

I wold have thought it was obvious from what I wrote, but forgive me.

Unearned wealth is that created through a money system that makes it easy for banks and governments to make or sanction insane unviable promises of future toil to pay off - or not as pay off as the case may be. House price inflation is primarily driven via that. For every sale crystallised at these prices, that 'wealth' is primarily underwritten by a promise by some poor sap to do 10x more toil than the previous incumbent ever had to.

You or I buying up shares in businesses that actually do something through capital we've accrued through our own work and then reaping dividends, or even better creating one if those businesses that offers something people want and then delivering on it isn't unearned wealth. As far as I'm concerned you should keep all of that. My post was against taxation, not pro it.

I can only imagine you misunderstood that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only just taxes are those on pollution and resource use. IMO, govt has only two valid functions - protection of the environment and its resources for all generations and operation of justice.

Fully agree. They have no business taxing me for stuff I don't use or worse, extortiong the value of my labour so they can waste the money on vanity projects or unnecessary, inefficient infrastructure. They can tax me all they like on everything else, especially if I'm being unnecessarily wasteful.

My civic responsibilities in regard to taxation extend only to helping people in need, environmental concerns or building things that are useful. Anything else and they can whistle for it. I'll happily give my time or money directly to help any of those groups, but adding to a general pot that's being mismanaged, no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "unearned wealth"? The last 15 years or so has seen me excelling as an HPC frugalista (no i-frippery, city breaks, or fine dining for me), with the (successful) aim of having enough wonga to do something other than *work* all my life. Is that "unearned wealth"? I can tell you, it doesn't feel unearned.

Private accumulation of wealth seems a laudable aim. Earned leisure time. If governments remove that option - or make it hard for the non-zillionaires to achieve, then you're effectively enslaved. Work and pay tax and never accumulate. No thanks.

In the context of economics unearned wealth means wealth taken from someone else through monopoly power, state power, manipulating market rules or just plain stealing.

Earned wealth is given freely.

Bribes taken to grant export licenses would be unearned wealth. Money given in return for a haircut is earned.

That's one of the main justifications for capitalism. Wealth is created when you provide something someone wants, and they freely reward you for it, and that's the only way we know wealth has been created.

In other words, earned wealth is wealth creation, unearned wealth is wealth redistribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's a thought experiment: make LVT voluntary.

If you pay, you get an entry in the land register and the courts will uphold that entry. Otherwise they won't - government won't involve itself in your land claims in any way.

What would be the outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given Ricardo's Theory of Rents, LVT makes economic sense to me.

However, I have major philosophical objections. If all land requires tax to be paid for its use then, given that all men have to stand and sleep somewhere, you can never be free.

On balance, I object to LVT.

This is why LVT should be brought in together with a basic income. Yes, everybody would have to pay for land, but everybody would get a share of the rents too. As long as you arranged your life so that you consumed the same or less land than the share of rents you received you would be free.

At the moment the only free people are those who own land freehold which is an increasingly unrealistic proposition for a large part of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's a thought experiment: make LVT voluntary.

If you pay, you get an entry in the land register and the courts will uphold that entry. Otherwise they won't - government won't involve itself in your land claims in any way.

What would be the outcome?

It would be a killer question because a significant amount of UK landed wealth is still unregistered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given Ricardo's Theory of Rents, LVT makes economic sense to me.

However, I have major philosophical objections. If all land requires tax to be paid for its use then, given that all men have to stand and sleep somewhere, you can never be free.

On balance, I object to LVT.

Well that's fine if you make all land common land, so that everyone is free. Otherwise all men may have the possibility of freedom, but only landowners are actually free.

As you say, taxes on resources are fair. Exclusive use of land (somewhere to exist, as you point out) is use of a finite resource!

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   76 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.