Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whisky and car keys to teenaged boys.
"Mansion Tax": Not In My Name!
09
09
"Mansion Tax": Not In My Name!
It seems I might be a wee bit out on a limb here - a familiar position it has to be said; but this leopard (out on his limb you see) is not going to change his spots.
It seems colleagues from around the Lib Dems, including folks from ALTER, and also land tax campaigners from outside the party seem to think the so called "Mansion Tax" announced at Conference the other day, in which residential properties worth more than a million pounds will attract a new half pence in the pound property tax, is "A Good Thing" or a "Step In The Right Direction". I absolutely disagree.
I'll go further: I think it is "A Bad Thing" and a "Step In The Wrong Direction". It threatens to undermine a broader implementation of a proper land tax. It raises very little, by way of a tax deliberately targeted on a particular group of people; a group of people who have considerable clout, in the main, and who have already shown, through the successful agitation of a similar group in getting Tory policy on Inheritance Tax changed, to whip up the fear of an "envy tax" amongst people unlikely ever to fall under its regime.
It combines everything we know to be bad about the Council Tax with none of what we promote as good about Land Value Tax. It sends precisely the wrong signals about land tax - that it is about raising a bit more revenue, not creating a new fiscal system where tax can be used to benefit directly the least well off (in the case of the land taxes by reducing markedly their costs of maintaining a basic living in the form of their shelter).
It seems to me that it is primarily aimed at sating the desire for a particular type of modern liberal to hammer the wealthy in order to "redistribute" to the less well off, rather than to create a genuinely more equitable system in which taxation is transparent, applied as far as possible to everyone of a similar class - ie land owners or income earners and so on.
The greatest benefits of land taxes can only be gained when land taxes are applied to the sort of land that those of us struggling to find a home need to be cheaper - which means taxing all land. If we cannot show these benefits, and quickly, then the arguments for land taxes will go stale before the benefits are apparent, and this sort of measure will foreshorten that process.
Also at conference, ALTER published their long awaited book of essays on the benefits and effects of land taxes. For those who read it, I cannot imagine that they would not conclude that land taxes are, in fact a "no brainer". We should get on and do it, or not at all. Not trifle around with a measure that will act to galvanize opposition to "any idea of a property tax coming out of the Lib Dems". In his foreword to the book Vince Cable says that, in contrast to 1909 we now need to know precisely what it is we want to implement and have a plan for doing so.
The "Mansion Tax" is part of neither.
(Technorati claim code: d529s7ntuk)
Trackback URL for this post:
Relevant Content
Here are some stories that may be on related subjects, based on the tags used in this post:
- Vince and George: both singing from the statist hymn-book
- From here to Liberty
- ALTERnative strategies
- "A bold, imaginative, exciting,..." way to line the pockets of lazy landowners
- People's Budget Day
- Tax havens are such old hat...
- Why do we bother making policy, Don?
- Repent! For the end of the state is nigh!
- Land. Value. Tax.
- Private charity, voluntary co-operation or state welfare
Recent Popular content
|
Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||


















Comments
Jock,
As one of the LibDem ALTER folk you are talking about, I believe you are wrong. Here's why.
I agree that the "mansion tax" does not achieve the aims of LVT. It lumps improvements and developments in with underlying land values, it is non-uniform, and does not apply to all types of land. All of which are flaws.
However there is a greater moral principle that must be established.
At present, land owners act as if somehow their ownership of property imposes no cost on society. Yet the police and courts that enforce our property laws, the army that protects the land on which property stands, and the government that makes the laws, all have to be paid for on a continual basis. Yet once they own property, rather than gaining an income, they are absolved forever from contributing to the costs that its protection imposes on society. Owners of large properties complain that they paid income tax in the past. So have I. But that was to fund past costs. I don’t see why the cost of funding the cost of protecting property – one of the main functions of the state- should fall on current income tax payers.
So regardless of Georgist efficiency arguments, there is a strong moral case for property tax. Land is easist property to identify. It lays the ground for the introduction of true LVT. And it forces the process of property valuation to start in earnest.
We'll have to agree to disagree. We know how to establish that "greater moral principle" and this is not part of it. And especially not if they are taxed twice - ie we do not also abolish IHT - on the same asset.
Whether we like it or not, we will not be in charge of the economy in the next parliament. Depending on who we side with, if anyone needs help in forming a government, we may well have some influence in many areas, but let's face it, fiscal policy is one area that other parties jealously guard.
We are therefore much more in the business of explaining, and selling, an altogether "better way" that we already know about, and have the opportunity to make a proper case for that better way, not to warp it by pandering to a populist notion (soak the rich) that is not truly part of the LVT ethos.
LVT is not about making the rich pay relatively more. It is about making everyone pay, in a wholly new way, for what they use.
This does not change the way we see tax - it simply adds an additional tax, which is also contra our arguments about LVT being a replacement tax. It will be seen as "another tax" on a particular group of people.
My position remains that this is worse than nothing. At least the Greens have a coherent land tax policy to explain. We come across as muddled. Given our party leaders are ALTER patrons too and appear to have understood our arguments, I'm frankly confused as to how they could even dream this one up!
[...] "Mansion Tax": Not In My Name! | Jock's Place jockcoats.me/mansion_tax_not_my_name – view page – cached Prev story: New Labour control freakery endangers children more? Next story: — From the page [...]
Had Vince consulted, even narrowly, on his decision that it is now a good time to talk about Land Tax, he would have found far more practical policy options than the mansion tax.
We have numerous problems that can be addressed using a single land value 'tool' called a Land Value Covenent (LVC) and they all create a win-win where both the government and the citizen benefit (the banks usually lose):
Even if Vince had just asked opinions on the Mansion Tax, he'd have got some valuable feedback, and perhaps taken the party along with him. Instead he's just announced that he intends to confiscate tens of thousands of pounds from people.
Yes. He is right to seek to address the awful situation with Council Tax being a very very poor and low land tax, but we can create win-win situations and balance the books for the long term - for a long, stable and prosperous recovery.