Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[djc206]

hidetheelephants said:

hereas those in low price areas subsidising those in high price areas like now is so equitable? The LVT would need to reflect the value of the house to some extent otherwise inequities like you have outlined would emerge. I'd expect that price bubbles like that in the south east would be deflated to some extent, so the differential in the tax levied might not be that much; there would be differentials because market forces would make it so, but LVT would prevent the lunacy of the last 30 years being repeated ad nauseam.

How is anyone in a low price area subsidising a high price area now?

High prices mean high SDLT and greater risk of IT so high price areas are already paying more for the pleasure of living in more expensive homes. Currently we all just pay council tax at broadly similar rates for our local services, that seems about as fair as fair gets from an interregional perspective.

Housing in the south is always going to be much more expensive than the north and wales for example as there is more work and better paid work, there’s also less land to build on hence it being worth a lot more.

[Mothersruin]

Council Tax is payment for local services used. Why not charge per person, rather than per property or land. Far fairer.

Wealth is already taxed via income tax etc...

[djc206]

Mothersruin said:

Council Tax is payment for local services used. Why not charge per person, rather than per property or land. Far fairer.

Wealth is already taxed via income tax etc...

Because that would target families and they’d just end up with some complicated structure to make sure the kids didn’t unduly suffer. It’s quite simple as it is let’s not complicate it.

[BigMacDaddy]

djc206 said:

Mothersruin said:

Council Tax is payment for local services used. Why not charge per person, rather than per property or land. Far fairer.

Wealth is already taxed via income tax etc...

Because that would target families and they’d just end up with some complicated structure to make sure the kids didn’t unduly suffer. It’s quite simple as it is let’s not complicate it.

Per adult then?

[Mothersruin]

djc206 said:

Mothersruin said:

Council Tax is payment for local services used. Why not charge per person, rather than per property or land. Far fairer.

Wealth is already taxed via income tax etc...

Because that would target families and they’d just end up with some complicated structure to make sure the kids didn’t unduly suffer. It’s quite simple as it is let’s not complicate it.

Ok - as long as we're clear they're not aiming for fair, just easy.

[djc206]

Mothersruin said:

Ok - as long as we're clear they're not aiming for fair, just easy.

It’s both. We have a social contract that means we subsidise other people’s kids until they become tax payers themselves. We already pay for their education, health, tax credits for their parents etc etc so why would local services be any different?

[Europa1]

BigMacDaddy said:

djc206 said:

Mothersruin said:

Council Tax is payment for local services used. Why not charge per person, rather than per property or land. Far fairer.

Wealth is already taxed via income tax etc...

Because that would target families and they’d just end up with some complicated structure to make sure the kids didn’t unduly suffer. It’s quite simple as it is let’s not complicate it.

Per adult then?

That sounds a lot like the Community Charge. Wasn't exactly popular when it was introduced.

[djc206]

BigMacDaddy said:

djc206 said:

Mothersruin said:

Council Tax is payment for local services used. Why not charge per person, rather than per property or land. Far fairer.

Wealth is already taxed via income tax etc...

Because that would target families and they’d just end up with some complicated structure to make sure the kids didn’t unduly suffer. It’s quite simple as it is let’s not complicate it.

Per adult then?

You could do that I guess. You can already get a single persons discount can’t you?

[irocfan]

Europa1 said:

That sounds a lot like the Community Charge. Wasn't exactly popular when it was introduced.

I read this and my first thought was "poll tax". Good idea then, good idea now

[Mothersruin]

djc206 said:

Mothersruin said:

Ok - as long as we're clear they're not aiming for fair, just easy.

It’s both. We have a social contract that means we subsidise other people’s kids until they become tax payers themselves. We already pay for their education, health, tax credits for their parents etc etc so why would local services be any different?

Fine (I disagree when it comes to local services but I'll roll with it) - per adult over the age of 18 not in full time education then.

[hidetheelephants]

djc206 said:

How is anyone in a low price area subsidising a high price area now?

High prices mean high SDLT and greater risk of IT so high price areas are already paying more for the pleasure of living in more expensive homes. Currently we all just pay council tax at broadly similar rates for our local services, that seems about as fair as fair gets from an interregional perspective.

Housing in the south is always going to be much more expensive than the north and wales for example as there is more work and better paid work, there’s also less land to build on hence it being worth a lot more.

In terms of personal and property taxation the 2 virtual couples currently pay the same income tax and more or less the same council tax, the only differentiation is due to cost of living differences between low-price and high-price areas causing the couple in the high-price area to pay slightly more in VAT for goods and services. My rather frivolous comment was based on that difference being worth less than the benefit accrued by the couple in the high-price area through untrammeled house price inflation. Stamp duty is a stupid tax and the current SDLT doubly so.

[djc206]

hidetheelephants said:

In terms of personal and property taxation the 2 virtual couples currently pay the same income tax and more or less the same council tax, the only differentiation is due to cost of living differences between low-price and high-price areas causing the couple in the high-price area to pay slightly more in VAT for goods and services. My rather frivolous comment was based on that difference being worth less than the benefit accrued by the couple in the high-price area through untrammeled house price inflation. Stamp duty is a stupid tax and the current SDLT doubly so.

But if they’ve bought within the last few years there is no real house price inflation in most areas. Gone are those days.

[The Surveyor]

BigMacDaddy said:

djc206 said:

Mothersruin said:

Council Tax is payment for local services used. Why not charge per person, rather than per property or land. Far fairer.

Wealth is already taxed via income tax etc...

Because that would target families and they’d just end up with some complicated structure to make sure the kids didn’t unduly suffer. It’s quite simple as it is let’s not complicate it.

Per adult then?

Or per-Bedroom. Larger houses pay a larger figure, who could possibly object to that?

[otolith]

The Surveyor said:

Or per-Bedroom. Larger houses pay a larger figure, who could possibly object to that?

People with large houses?

[Jinx]

The Surveyor said:

Or per-Bedroom. Larger houses pay a larger figure, who could possibly object to that?

Number of windows anyone?

[Mothersruin]

otolith said:

The Surveyor said:

Or per-Bedroom. Larger houses pay a larger figure, who could possibly object to that?

People with large houses?

Sure, if there's only one or two of them living there while four are living in a smaller house next door using twice the resources. That would be silly, wouldn't it.

[pingu393]

Mothersruin said:

otolith said:

The Surveyor said:

Or per-Bedroom. Larger houses pay a larger figure, who could possibly object to that?

People with large houses?

Sure, if there's only one or two of them living there while four are living in a smaller house next door using twice the resources. That would be silly, wouldn't it.

Yeah, but shouldn't the four in the smaller house not have the large house, and the couple in the large house can have the small house?

It's just not fair.

[Johnnytheboy]

pingu393 said:

Mothersruin said:

otolith said:

The Surveyor said:

Or per-Bedroom. Larger houses pay a larger figure, who could possibly object to that?

People with large houses?

Sure, if there's only one or two of them living there while four are living in a smaller house next door using twice the resources. That would be silly, wouldn't it.

Yeah, but shouldn't the four in the smaller house not have the large house, and the couple in the large house can have the small house?

It's just not fair.

Maybe just tax people on what they earn, not what they own?

[Mothersruin]

Johnnytheboy said:

pingu393 said:

Mothersruin said:

otolith said:

The Surveyor said:

Or per-Bedroom. Larger houses pay a larger figure, who could possibly object to that?

People with large houses?

Sure, if there's only one or two of them living there while four are living in a smaller house next door using twice the resources. That would be silly, wouldn't it.

Yeah, but shouldn't the four in the smaller house not have the large house, and the couple in the large house can have the small house?

It's just not fair.

Maybe just tax people on what they earn, not what they own?

We could call that Income Tax.

[Johnnytheboy]

Mothersruin said:

Johnnytheboy said:

pingu393 said:

Mothersruin said:

otolith said:

The Surveyor said:

Or per-Bedroom. Larger houses pay a larger figure, who could possibly object to that?

People with large houses?

Sure, if there's only one or two of them living there while four are living in a smaller house next door using twice the resources. That would be silly, wouldn't it.

Yeah, but shouldn't the four in the smaller house not have the large house, and the couple in the large house can have the small house?

It's just not fair.

Maybe just tax people on what they earn, not what they own?

We could call that Income Tax.

Catchy, I like it!