That Lunancy from the Greens in Full...
Discussion
edh said:
LVT has the potential to raise £200bn + annually in the UK. It's not an "add-on" tax, it's a fundamentally different structure for tax. Stamp duty, IHT, VAT (EU permitting), Income tax & NI would all be in the mix for removal or reduction.
That's an interesting concept (interesting in the sense that an academic can make a good proportion of a career writing about it), but(a) history tells us taxes are very, very rarely abolished or even reduced that much, so LVT in this country would like start low, be piled on top of other taxes, and then increased.
(b) IHT, IT, NIC, VAT, SLDT all come from transactions in which a greater sum of cash is moving around. In principle, they are slices from a "pie" of cash that is liquid, and there to be sliced. LVT isn't that at all: it's a tax on an asset for which there is no corresponding "pie" of cash unless is it sold or borrowed against.
Borrowing to pay tax is not generally a good idea.
Greg66 said:
...history tells us taxes are very, very rarely abolished or even reduced that much, so LVT in this country would like start low, be piled on top of other taxes, and then increased...
It's all fair and fine sitting outside HM Treasury pushing out 'in theory' notions of LVT replacing a long list of taxes, but with the way things work in the real world, it wouldn't happen that way. LVT would start low to have any chance of making it past the thinking stage, then creep would set in - and few if any taxes would be replaced. Politicians would see more £ signs floating before their eyes and more spunking up the wall would follow.
Greg66 said:
edh said:
LVT has the potential to raise £200bn + annually in the UK. It's not an "add-on" tax, it's a fundamentally different structure for tax. Stamp duty, IHT, VAT (EU permitting), Income tax & NI would all be in the mix for removal or reduction.
That's an interesting concept (interesting in the sense that an academic can make a good proportion of a career writing about it), but(a) history tells us taxes are very, very rarely abolished or even reduced that much, so LVT in this country would like start low, be piled on top of other taxes, and then increased.
(b) IHT, IT, NIC, VAT, SLDT all come from transactions in which a greater sum of cash is moving around. In principle, they are slices from a "pie" of cash that is liquid, and there to be sliced. LVT isn't that at all: it's a tax on an asset for which there is no corresponding "pie" of cash unless is it sold or borrowed against.
Borrowing to pay tax is not generally a good idea.
Property / land is an asset that produces an income in many cases for the owner.
For domestic property it replaces council tax, but is levied on the owner, not the occupier. (and no, it doesn't just get added onto the rent, which is set by the market, not by the landlord..)
turbobloke said:
LVT would start low to have any chance of making it past the thinking stage, then creep would set in - and few if any taxes would be replaced. Politicians would see more £ signs floating before their eyes and more spunking up the wall would follow.
Starting LVT low would be pointless as it wouldn't have the beneficial effects intended. I think the chances of getting LVT in the UK are very very low. Banks would be the biggest losers, and they are pretty powerful. The land/property lobby would be very hard to beat.Gaspode said:
Andy Zarse said:
At what rate? Is a smallholding not treated under the "disposal of main residence" rules?
Not if the land isn't contiguous with your main residence, it isn't.
You know me, then!Gaspode said:
Andy Zarse said:
No I don't think so.
Try telling that to DEFRA, they have issued us with a single holding number, as far as they are concerned we have one smallholding split over two sites. Our Environmental stewardship scheme membership covers both locations, as do our EU grants. 
Still, we are talking about the HMRC here, and they tend to rely on ancient property descriptions. They still like their taxes, tythes and things like that. And in their book, AFAIUI a smallholding is a dwelling with adjacent land. Other land doesn't count; gains on disposal are taxable.
edh said:
Starting LVT low would be pointless as it wouldn't have the beneficial effects intended. I think the chances of getting LVT in the UK are very very low. Banks would be the biggest losers, and they are pretty powerful. The land/property lobby would be very hard to beat.
And that is, I think why we shall never see it. Not unles there is some sort of huge change in how things work in the UK.Halb said:
edh said:
Starting LVT low would be pointless as it wouldn't have the beneficial effects intended. I think the chances of getting LVT in the UK are very very low. Banks would be the biggest losers, and they are pretty powerful. The land/property lobby would be very hard to beat.
And that is, I think why we shall never see it. Not unles there is some sort of huge change in how things work in the UK.I believe it's in the order of £260 billion to date. They are not going to tax themselves, no matter what the clueless greens think.
Halb said:
edh said:
Starting LVT low would be pointless as it wouldn't have the beneficial effects intended. I think the chances of getting LVT in the UK are very very low. Banks would be the biggest losers, and they are pretty powerful. The land/property lobby would be very hard to beat.
And that is, I think why we shall never see it. Not unles there is some sort of huge change in how things work in the UK.Andy Zarse said:
Defra are utterly mental, a bureaucratic nightmare. I shared a flock of pigs with a neighbour and Defra made us have separate herd numbers for the same pigs! And don't even talk to me about Trading bloody Standards and their precious movement tickets. When moving the pigs from my field to my neighbours, they wanted the vehicle registration number and that the truck had been cleaned and sterilied to certain standards etc. They simply couldn't accept the animals just walked from one field to another through what I like to call a gate but which they like to call an operative-removeable animal barrier or similar. Perfectly mental
Still, we are talking about the HMRC here, and they tend to rely on ancient property descriptions. They still like their taxes, tythes and things like that. And in their book, AFAIUI a smallholding is a dwelling with adjacent land. Other land doesn't count; gains on disposal are taxable.
No argument from me about Defra. I see what you're getting at now wrt the term 'smallholding' - land not contiguous with the dwelling is subject to CGT when disposed of, whereas if it's a field next to the cottage it wouldn't be.Still, we are talking about the HMRC here, and they tend to rely on ancient property descriptions. They still like their taxes, tythes and things like that. And in their book, AFAIUI a smallholding is a dwelling with adjacent land. Other land doesn't count; gains on disposal are taxable.
Gaspode said:
No argument from me about Defra. I see what you're getting at now wrt the term 'smallholding' - land not contiguous with the dwelling is subject to CGT when disposed of, whereas if it's a field next to the cottage it wouldn't be.
Correct, and I would imagine this includes the vast majority of what would be termed smallholdings.fblm said:
Of course it's not. Revenue neutral right? I'm afraid that's not how the world works.
turbobloke said:
Replacement of taxes is mentioned from time to time but the people mentioning it aren't in HM Treasury and the chances of other taxes being replaced as 'promised' are vanishingly small.
Your point isn't stupid it's just naive dreamworld fantasy. Pointing at things and taxing them is indeed stupid, it reflects failed left-liberal dogma.
I don't understand what you two are on about. I think a Land Value Tax is the fairest and most efficient and my support for it is dependent on it as a replacement rather than an extra. Your point isn't stupid it's just naive dreamworld fantasy. Pointing at things and taxing them is indeed stupid, it reflects failed left-liberal dogma.
Edited by BJG1 on Tuesday 27th January 23:30
BJG1 said:
I don't understand what you two are on about. I think a Land Value Tax is the fairest and most efficient and my support for it is dependent on it as a replacement rather than an extra.
If you were designing a new system from the outset I'd agree. All I'm saying is that the political reality is that it would only ever be implemented as an additional tax. fblm said:
If you were designing a new system from the outset I'd agree. All I'm saying is that the political reality is that it would only ever be implemented as an additional tax.
Well of course its initial implementation has to be as an additional tax anyway but we reduce/increase different taxes all the time. The point is to introduce it then gradually increase the proportion of taxation that comes from it whilst reducing others. I don't think it's a legitimate criticism of a policy to say "oh yeah but that's not how it'll work in reality" - that doesn't make the idea of LVT any less valid. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff