Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Take the value of your house, subtract building cost equals land value. Apply initial rate of 0.85% rising to 3%, so typically ?500,000 for ED but let's be be generous and say ?400,000 = ?3,500 for first year rising to ?12,000 pa . Sounds sensible, eh? Happy with that, Helen Hayes, and subsequent collapse of housing market? Is Corbyn mad or just seriously deluded?

Other countries have this system of local taxation, including some states in the USA. They are not, presumably mad and/or deluded. It is to replace business rates as well (which I suspect no one thinks is even remotely a good system). As with any tax, the calibration on the actual percentage rate occurs once land-values are assessed (as Council Tax bands are currently - they have, you may have noticed, precious little to do with current house prices). Only then do you know the tax base and can set a percentage that generates required tax revenue.


For sure, the idea here is partly a wealth tax. In France they just add up your assets - and in ED anyone owning a house would be over the threshold. This might have advantages in terms of distortions: people may be inclined to sell off their gardens rather like you can still see blocked up windows after that tax. Generally, if you want a wealth tax its best to apply it to total assets to avoid this. But are you saying a wealth tax is a bad thing? If so, why? Presumably you can see that it might be more equitable, given that it is steeply progressive on wealth in a country where public services are grossly under-funded and where substantial numbers of people cannot afford to buy their own home?


If the housing market collapses (as it is likely to do for other reasons than this) then that would adjust the distribution of the tax, no?

apbremer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Take the value of your house, subtract building

> cost equals land value. Apply initial rate of

> 0.85% rising to 3%, so typically ?500,000 for ED

> but let's be be generous and say ?400,000 = ?3,500

> for first year rising to ?12,000 pa . Sounds

> sensible, eh? Happy with that, Helen Hayes, and

> subsequent collapse of housing market? Is Corbyn

> mad or just seriously deluded?


Let's just be kind and say that he does not have a clue about economics and market forces.


He wants to hit the property owners but he forgets about the fct that they also own the properies that tenants live in. He hasn't realised that rents would have to go up to compensate.


On the day his launched his Party's new policy on childcare, he didn't have a clue on what it would cost. Just like Diane Abbott's 10,000 fantasy policemen. And 3,00 extra firemen and 20,000 teachers. They are happy though because the Magic Monet Tree will be like the golden Goose and provide the where-with-all to do it. Plus of course pay for nationalising the rail companies, National Grid, the Water, Gas and Electricity providers. Plus pay for the University fees. I could go on but the list is far too long.


He is seriously deluded.

How on earth do you get the above figures from


"We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax."


https://fullfact.org/economy/labours-land-value-tax-will-you-have-sell-your-garden/

It isn?t being proposed as an additional tax, but as a potential replacement for council taxes and/or business rates.



So people taking up the most land (never mind what's built on it) pay more - OK by me in my small footprint flat


And originally proposed by Adam Smith :)

All semantics and dodging the question. If you are now paying around ?1500 pa in Council tax this will at least double initially with massive further increases. So "We will initiate and...consider new options such as a land value tax." If you believe that this is not forthcoming under a Labour Government you will believe anything!

Anyway Australia has a Land Tax


https://www.finance.wa.gov.au/cms/State_Revenue/Land_Tax/What_is_Land_Tax_.aspx#rate_scale


Notice the scale shows up to 300,000 A$ the tax is a flat rate of 0 A$, from 300,000 to 420,000 it's a flat rate of 300 A$

then it hits 0.25 % etc.

If this old Loon Corbyn got in (God help us)with the prospect of this absurd Garden Tax, logically this would happen:

House values would collapse to a level where, as the building cost is more or less stable, the site value would drop to a figure where the levy would cost about the same as the present affordable council tax, which would be abolished.

Residential values typically in ED would halve to about ?450,000 ie ?50,000 X 3% garden tax =?1500 pa.

Great swathes of the country would be decimated, many with massive drops in residential values.

Every bank and building society would become insolvent.

There would be financial Armageddon with the pound in freefall,interest rates and inflation at Weimar Republic levels, BOE printing presses rolling day and night and UK and our citizens largely bankrupt and in massive negative equity. Just like Venezuela which Corbyn so admires.

Frantic general election with The Tories sweeping back into Government in their habitual role of clearing up the mess Labour always leaves.Don't forget the Labour minister of the last Socialist shambles "There's no money left".The difference this time with this crazed Marxist lot is that it will take decades to restore the economy if ever, particularly with the mass emigration of so much talent and wealth which would undoubtedly occur.

Actually I think that this Tory government is also pretty clueless as to how the economy works and prosperity is created despite State interference, but is infinitely better than the useless alternative.

Read about Henry George & [Progress and Poverty ] & Land Value Tax. You can also read about what Adam Smith [The Wealth of Nations] & even what Milton Friedman had to say along with Paul Samuelson, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz all of whom support this form of taxation.


Fear mongering that your land will be taxed at 3% of it's value is entirely wrong. It is likely to be taxed at about the same as Council Tax but those who currently have large land & property resources & store their wealth there to shelter against taxes would find themselves losers under this method - suddenly they have to pay their fair share.


There is another benefit - for landowners who are hoarding valuable sites that houses could be built on this tax will force them to develop or sell out to someone else who will develop & make land less scarce - this will reduce the cost of housing by making houses plentiful; not so good for speculators but very good for those who need housing.


It is possibly the most fair & efficient tax that could be employed & thus the Conservatives will be against it. Fairness is not on their agenda. They have slurred it as a 'Garden Tax' to stir up an emotive opposition to this form of progressive taxation.

I saw a clip earlier today of Jeremy Corbyn slating Tory Govts for allowing Corporations off scott-free while 'the people' pay for austerity.

Wouldn't a tax as outlined above be effectively the same thing (but targetted at home owners) ?

Can everyone seriously pay ?3k every year going forward (going up to ?12K ?!), some people have been born in their houses. What if they're unemployed, retired, disabled, ?

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I saw a clip earlier today of Jeremy Corbyn

> slating Tory Govts for allowing Corporations off

> scott-free while 'the people' pay for austerity.

> Wouldn't a tax as outlined above be effectively

> the same thing (but targetted at home owners) ?

> Can everyone seriously pay ?3k every year going

> forward (going up to ?12K ?!), some people have

> been born in their houses. What if they're

> unemployed, retired, disabled, ?


It wouldn't be that much I'm sure

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • For every person like OP that moans their doorbell was rung and there was a knock on the door, there's someone else moaning that they didn't hear the delivery drivers. If you've ever done delivery work you'll know that loads of people's bells don't work. The delivery drivers probably goes to a hundred doors a day: press bell, knock door, drop package, move on. If you don't like delivery drivers, insist on delivery by Royal Mail where the workers have wages and a union - or just stop ordering shit online that's artificially cheap. But most of us (me included) don't want that
    • If someone comes to my house and bangs my door and slams my gate, I'd speak to them about it nicely and ask if they would please not do that. And then subsequently less nicely if they keep doing it, ending in reporting them.  We don't slam doors at home and I don't put up with that either. I can see us moving to a culture where we bribe drivers to be nice by tipping them, but we shouldn't have to. It's not necessary - does not matter if they are on minimum wage or not, or if society means that delivery services are outsourced or whatever reason anyone would like to concoct.     
    • We’ve got a gap on the roof of our shed that needs patching  don’t want to buy a huge roll so hoping someone has some leftover  happy to collect/reimburse 
    • I never said I thought it was targeted or deliberate. There also has never been a “stand off” or confrontation, we’ve spoken to them in a friendly manner about it. Our experience is they don’t seem to care. That’s the frustrating thing for us, if someone politely raises a concern at least take a second to reflect. Treat others how you would want to be treated.  I don’t want them to lose their job, far from it. But considering it could cost me a days work to fix any damage, I’m within my right to try prevent it.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...