Monday, January 23, 2012

Bankers step up propaganda war against LVT: Shock

Why a wealth tax is a very bad idea

The paid editorial in today's CityAM (a freesheet full of special pleading for the bankers and FS sector which they hand out at Tube stations) rehashes all the old lies, there are too Poor Widow Bogeys, it conflates a tax on rental value of land with wealth tax, says that if we have LVT then a tax on pension assets will be next, celebrates rising property prices and says that making London a tax haven for money launderers is Good For The Economy and says that compared to LVT, even savage rates of income tax are acceptable forms of taxation.

Posted by mark wadsworth @ 04:04 PM (1888 views)
Please complete the required fields.



15 thoughts on “Bankers step up propaganda war against LVT: Shock

  • Quite surprising to see this article is written by someone who prides himself as a capitalist…

    I’d love to pay a 52% tax on my bonus if the government gave me many times that in free land value in return.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • And in other news, Mr Heath pops over to Switzerland, the US, etc to urge them to get rid of all property tax and make up the shortfall by taxing income

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • ontheotherhand says:

    Wow, what a rant he goes off on. Full of straw men and ‘they’ll be after your children next’ and crippling practical flaws. My favourite is, ‘Sure, foreign buyers push up property prices – but that would have happened anyway…’ Either they push up prices or they don’t, all other variables held constant. If it would have happened anyway then they have no effect. Gibberish.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • otoh is spot on, more straw men than an audition for the Wizard of Oz.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • This is total nonsense. If they quit bombing the Middle East into the stone age, stop funding 4.5% of the IMF bailout of the Eurozone, stop funding the Eurozone, end social security nets and access to NHS services for non-nationals.

    If they did that, they could cut everybody’s taxes.

    Remember that the 1% are trillionaires who sit off-shore in tax havens. These taxes will be on those who spend money at your business, who employ people. Remember the Soviet Union folks, Marxism doesn’t work. Even if it sounds good, it simply doesn’t work. What really annoys me is that Mark pretends to be some kind of a Conservative, but is actually a total Marxist.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Mombers, OTOH, Fubar, I’m glad you can see the funny side. So far, the bankers have sent their foot soldiers into battle – the NIMBYs, the owner-occupiers, the buy-to-letters, the Poor Widows In Mansions, but at last they have revealed their hand, and let’s not forget that bankers have some sort of weird hold over politicians, they say jump and politicians ask “Over which cliff?”.

    Libertas, if I were a total Marxist then I would say so, only I’m not. If I were a Marxist, for example, then I would not keep saying that we should reduce taxes on income, turnover, profits (and preferably scrap them); I would not recommend that we replace NHS and State Education with a voucher system; if I were a Marxist I would not recommend less government interference in the economy, such as a reduction in regulations, red tape or the National Minimum Wage; if I were a Marxist, then instead of standing for UKIP and saying we should get out of the EU, I would be a member of one of the many parties calling for more integration. So it is genuinely a puzzle to me why you think that I am a Marxist. Seriously.

    Do you have any evidence to support your contention? Any whatsoever? And if I’m a Marxist, can you please confirm that Queen Elizabeth I, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Winston Churchill (when he was young), Milton Friedman, J S Mill and so on were all Marxists?
    ————————-
    Your maths is also completely out of whack. At the moment, the Lib Cons are running an annual deficit of about £120 billion.

    Your little list adds up to the following savings:
    – War on Middle East – more or less over, savings negligible (I think we spent something like £10 billion a year on Iraq, Libya and so on).
    – IMF bail out – not agreed yet, even if we went for it, it would be a one-off payment of £17.5 billion or something, which is still up for debate and hopefully they won’t make it anyway.
    – EU membership fees – £10 billion a year or so net of rebates.
    – Social Security payments to non-nationals, maybe £5 billion, cost to NHS, maybe another £5 billion.

    So even with all your savings, we’d still be running a deficit of £100 billion with still no room to cut taxes.

    Y’see that’s how I argue – facts, figures, logic and so on, not polemic. Or does that make me a Marxist?

    I await your answer to my question: do you consider people’s earned income to be private property?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Libertas, I suggest you take a look at the following links before repeating the charge that LVT supportersd are Marxists:

    http://wealthandwant.com/docs/Andelson_HGRC.html
    http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
    http://www.truefreetrade.org/scg.htm

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Greenmind, good links!

    It was recently pointed out to me that we can add Enoch Powell to the list of unlikely LVT supporters, along with Steve Norris or even Boris Johnson.

    I suspect that on Planet Libertas it’s easier ignoring real life and just insulting people at random.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Oh for heaven’s sake, is there an equivalent of Godwins Law but with Marxism? Calling people Marxists over LVT is just insulting, not to mention the sign of a dunderhead and wouldn’t merit the dignity of a response if the situation weren’t so serious.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Fubar, yes, it’s known as Maddow’s Law and is completely standard fare among the Blue Socialists: Homeys, Faux Libs, Tea Partys and the like.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “I await your answer to my question: do you consider people’s earned income to be private property?”

    Well duh, of course earned income is private property. It is a Marxist assumption to believe that income is the property of the State. Britain didn’t have an income tax until World War II. So it is war which ushered this in.

    Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan have cost £20bn directly, but they also print money, so you have also paid via inflation.

    The issue here is, that I’ve picked just a couple of items and identified tens of billions of savings. If instead of raising taxes you cut them, then economic growth will rise, causing a disproportionate rise in tax receipts, diminishing the cost of other services, reducing deficits. So, its the direction of change that is relevant.

    Your plan is, raise taxes on the rich, which will reduce economic growth, which will reduce tax receipts, which will create more debt.

    When Kennedy and Reagan slashed taxes, US Govt got more money from taxes because people started opening factories and working.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Surely the aim must be, not to stop capitalism, but to prevent it from sucking all the wealth from everyone and concentrate it in the few.

    Capitalism is the only mechanism that has worked to increase the wealth of the world over the last few hundred years. But left unchecked you get the unwanted concentration where a few do extremely well, and the many struggle. And the longer this process is allowed to continue the worse it gets for the many, The history of the Victorian age demonstrates this. Trades Unions, Friendly Societies, Building Societies, co-operatives all grew to resist this concentration of wealth, and help everyone play a part in society.

    Indeed the current argument over capping benefits really misses the point. It’s not that benefits should be capped, but more opportunities for creating (meaningful) work for the unemployed must be pursed. Anyone can say don’t give them any money. That’s stupid. If you care that they are spending too much of tax payers money the government should use its weight to force economic development away from the SE. And fiscal measures (higher business taxes in the SE, but lower elsewhere) can be used. Follow a such policies with the same aggression that are being used against benefits and something could be achieved. Alas the Tory party is all about preserving the wealth of those that have it, rather than making it work for the national good.

    It’s not that capitalism is wrong, just that it is wrong for so few to get so much. Alas this tendency will never go away — those who are good at concentrating and then hiding their capital are going to concentrate and hide their wealth. Not rocket science, but needs addressing.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Libertas, do you ever read what you have written?

    1. You now say that earned income is private property

    2. You say that replacing income tax with LVT is “Marxist”

    3. Therefore it is fair to assume that you are perfectly happy with income tax, or at least that you prefer it to LVT.

    4. Can you please explain why earned income has a less hallowed status in your world than land?

    5. You completely miquote me again, which is getting really irritating, really f-ing irritating, I said, as a modest start, that I support the Lib Dems’ proposal, which is to replace the 50p top income tax rate with the Mansion Tax. I did not and have never said “we should raise taxes on the rich”, which is typical Daily Mail cant.

    6. I take it that you didn’t read the lists of people who supported the idea of replacing taxes on income with LVT as linked by Greenmind, or can we take it that you dismiss them all as Marxists?

    7. Your maths is still out of whack. With a £100 billion deficit, you have no scope for cutting taxes. I’d like to see how you cut taxes sufficiently to make up a £100 shortfall. Can you stick to facts and not polemic, please?

    8. if you knew anything about taxes and the Laffer Curve, you would know that LVT does not have deadweight costs, it has no Laffer effects at all, so if you collect £1 in LVT instead of £1 in income tax, you get the extra 50p economic growth without increasing the budget deficit. So clearly you know NOTHING about taxation, deadweight costs, Laffer effect etc.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Everything is always argues in extremes.

    LVT would be good, but I do understand that old widow’s might not be able to afford it.

    So why not introduce it….but have exemptions.

    Such as little old ladies who have had their home for 30 years. (I don’t believe in kicking people out of big houses because they don’t need the room. if they bought a big house, they are entitled to it)

    Why not have stages of incrimental decrease for those that have owned their home for specified periods? But those that want to buy a big house and not live in it, (oilgarchs, etc) have to pay excess tax. That’ll learn ’em.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Maske2g, exactly, of course it’d have to be phased in, it need not be full-on overnight, of course we’d have exemptions, deferments or discounts for OAPs (or a much higher state pension).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>