Nick Clegg on Affordable Housing and LVT

06
11
07

Nick Clegg on Affordable Housing and LVT

tagged with:

I got an email late today from an LVT supporter saying that Nick Clegg had spoken about the role of LVT/SVR in enabling more affordable housing in a BBC panel discussion after the Queen's Speech today.

I've not been able to find it via the BBC website (it doesn't help not actually knowing what the program might have been - I'm guessing it was Daily Politics). So did anyone happen to see it and either point me to a "watch again" URL or explain what he said, specifically about LVT and housing. Because it would be quite significant since even LVT supporters in the higher echelons of the party have so far not been keen to discuss it as anything other than a taxation base and this could be the first time that someone has shown they understand it's got a whole greater relevance than that.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://jockcoats.me/trackback/697

Comments

Submitted by Paul Tyler (not verified) on November 7, 2007 - 15:17.

The answer to your question: at the latter end of yesterday's BBC1 coverage of the State Opening Nick made an excellent case for more effective tax incentives to get more, cheaper and browner land for housebuilding, but reference to LVT/SVR.

Submitted by Ian (not verified) on November 22, 2007 - 19:46.

Nick Clegg wants to introduce local INCOME TAX. So unless he's changed his mind since publishing his manifesto, all those who believe in freedom have to do everything we can to ensure no one votes for him, despite his other positive views.

Submitted by Jock on November 23, 2007 - 03:20.

I don't disagree, BUT...

ALTER has also changed its position on LIT in any case. Because of the intransigence of party campaign managers who insist that "we can't change our minds" on LIT, we have I think accepted that LIT could go ahead, so long as there is also a move toward LVT as a national tax - replacing one or more other taxes (my favourites would be Stamp Duty, IHT and Capital Gains to start with to prove the point then elements of national income tax later) so that we are not left with no property based tax at all. And to be fair, more of LVT's beneficial effects would be felt if it were a national tax - because that would create natural, land value based tax competition across the country.

Personally, I think our policy should be, as in America, that local government can choose whatever system they feel most appropriate for local tax raising, including local sales taxes, local payroll taxes and whatever other innovations local authorities might come up with depending on thei local economies.

However, my real interest in Nick's position is that it was reported that he had said something about LVT helping to produce more affordable housing. And, to my knowledge, that is possibly one of the first times a senior figure in the party has agreed LVT has a greater role than merely as a tax raising system. Where it fits in his tax policy - at what "level" of government it might be levied to have the most beneficial effects on affordable housing policy in other words - is almost irrelevant to that.

But I've not heard the claim repeated (despite the crucial importance of affordable housing) so it will not be playing any part in my decision as to who to vote for!