Anyone else in the South East worried about Andy Burnham bringing in a land tax?

You said you can’t raise tax receipts from tax reduction. I gave you theory and practise that shows you’re blanking on a large part of information.

RoI has one of the worst housing crises in the western world. Also a growing wealth divide. Your opinion is controversial.

RoI has one of the worst housing crises in the western world. Also a growing wealth divide. Your opinion is controversial.

I’m not sure what the issue is for you with the pp’s posts but there are schools of economic thought.

ROI is close to what Mundell talks about and he’s not laughable in any way. It’s a real world example which goes against your earlier posts.

You are still not engaging substantively.

You're right. My mistake.

I could have written "the Laffer Curve, or any other economic concept that recognises taxation influences behaviour."

Happy now?

This is a discussion forum, not a peer reviewed journal. Most people engage with the substance of a point rather than fixating on a single label. Pedantry often says more about the person avoiding the argument than the argument they're challenging...

I do love the sweeping positive outlook though

Hopefully it is taught then, not just the model but Mundell’s theory overall, as otherwise left leaning lecturers are leaving a pretty big blank and creating low understanding of how taxes impact behaviour.

I am not the one who brought it up. I am focused because I have been told I misunderstand it, which I will not believe until a coherent explanation follows.

I do not know much about the content of Economics curricula. Usually I can give the underlying maths a go, because my PhD is in a very maths heavy branch of STEM.

Google informs me that you are probably using an informal term for the Mundell-Fleming Model, which seems to concern the relationship between exchange rates, monetary policy snd movement of capital. It is not clear where tax policy fits in.

Why focus on the Laffer curve? There are other NP winning economists available. Those that highlight tax reduction and increase in tax receipts.

And whose theory pretty much aligns with ROI in practise.

So you mean
Only certain deserving people are allowed certain properties

Is there a point at which how much someone more deserving becomes less deserving or can this category be averaged out over a lifetime

ie if you pay more tax when you are working it’s ok to stay living in your chosen home when you are old and maybe paying less. Or if you are maybe paying less you aren’t deserving enough so have to move out irrespective of previous tax payments

Your idea of the deserving and not so
May I say
Is nasty

Ps
Your comment
it’s this group ( with high value homes ) that underpay their taxes

Have you ever thought for one minute that this group
may have given up a lot to buy their homes
no holidays ( spending tax money abroad)
no wardrobe budgets
no meals/ drinks/ out etc
Constant saving and constant diy.
You
Have no idea how people come to live in high value homes

You
Have no idea how much tax they pay over their lifetimes

And
Lack of knowledge and understanding is exactly why there are policies like this and the countries gone to the dogs

Oh, please tell us the main points I am missing. I said I don’t have the stomach to explain the nonsense that led to Reagan’s first recession. It is readily searchable, and I am happy to deal with the (lack of) maths behind it, if there are questions on that.

Of course serious economists hold different viewpoints and debate vigorously. There are just a few things virtually none of them support. Two of these are tariffs and the Laffer Curve.

As to your other point, I do not recall being asked personally and I thought it self evident: the cornerstone of civilised society is contributing in a fair and transparent manner as we are reasonably able. In a capitalist society, the values of our houses are the best indicators of their desirability. In this sense LVT is both fair and transparent. It is also hard to dodge.

If one lives in London but isn’t taking advantage of what makes it so desirable and therefore expensive, one can consider moving. I’ve already advocated at least twice, above, for a long lead in time so everyone prepares and the elderly are not displaced, and for arrangements for the vulnerable. Otherwise, as people elsewhere do, one learns to commute or budget. The rewards of better services are a delightful payoff the British have completely lost sight of, BTW.

I completely agree with you about the need for growth. Although everything is messed up now, the US has managed long stretches of excellent growth in parallel with much higher LVTs than anything being considered here.

They’re doing pretty well with a big surplus. Why would that happen if you’re sure tax reduction can’t equal increase in tax receipts?

Do UK universities skip over supply side economics these days, including Nobel Prize winner Mundell? Do they instead teach only one view, the left?

I can see why we get pockets of no understanding of behaviour in politics.

The Irish citizenry did not gain a great deal from the roar of the Celtic tiger. As a percentage of GDP, tax revenues fell. The cost of living rose so that RoI became and remains one of the highest CoL countries in the EU. It has one of the worst housing shortages, too. There are loads of stealth taxes.

In fact there are many similarities to the UK.

Yes, the first thing that homeowners, especially families, will do is move in a stranger or turn their home into a holiday let...

Of course they all live in the right locations, have spare rooms and/or a mortgage which allows it?

Love to know where you live and who you know.

How does making one part of the housing market less attractive cause the whole market to deflate?

Of course, homes will still be bought and sold. People move for all sorts of reasons, whether it's divorce, a new job, retirement or some other change in their circumstances.

If more people are competing for the same limited number of homes, I don't see how that improves affordability. Some people will still buy because they have no choice, but they'll often end up paying more.

Seem like basic Supply and Demand to me, but what do I know.

I think we have established that some people don't want fair or proportionate. They just want to stick it people who, in their opinion, have their "already taxed" income tied up in the wrong format or simply have a bigger or more expensive house. If that house is in London or the South East all the better, those anywhere else in the country who meet the same criteria are also acceptable collateral damage.

Your reply focuses almost entirely on one passing reference to the Laffer Curve, conveniently ignoring the main points.

I don't have to be an economist to understand the obvious. Taxes influence behaviour. Even economists who disagree about the Laffer Curve generally accept that. The debate isn't about whether taxes change behaviour, but by how much and at what point.

Ooh, get you! "Serious economists" and publication rankings. Because, yeah, that settles the debate.🙄

Don't get me wrong, I love a good peer-reviewed paper on almost any topic. But simply invoking credentials doesn't answer the question. This isn't Masters of the Universe, where we all hold a sword aloft, shout "By the power of serious economists!" and, hey presto, the debate is settled or the problems are magically fixed!

Last time I looked, economics still had different schools of thought, and they still didn't all agree with each other.

So I don't accept that only economists are capable of understanding a problem or recognising the trade-offs. Public policy is about more than economic theory. It's about creating fair and practical solutions that work in the real world, encourage the right behaviours and raise the right amount of tax without strangling growth.

Perhaps you could now answer the question you've been avoiding. I would so appreciate it.

Why should someone be taxed every year on an unrealised increase in the value of the home they live in when they haven't received a penny? How can that be considered fair and proportionate?

No. His devolution to Regions is a huge issue. Not in a good way. Abdicating responsibility is not okay.

As for the request for an economist hopefully some undergraduate institutions don’t leave out Mundell because the lecturer prefers only to teach left leaning economists.

A Text-Book Staple: The Mundell-Fleming model is so fundamental that it is still taught in almost every undergraduate macroeconomics textbook in the world.

Why did ROI expand on offering a lower tax rate in the 1990s after initially doing so for Apple?

Ireland used Apple as a blueprint for its grander economic philosophy: transforming a small island nation into a global tech and finance hub. By creating a reputation as an incredibly accommodating, low-tax destination, Ireland successfully used Apple to attract other massive US multinationals like Google, Microsoft, and Intel

The issue here is that homeowners are being lumped together by property value when in fact they’re a very mixed group and there are far more important differences to take into account.

I’d say the biggest difference is between people who are earning… and people who are not… or more crudely maybe, age.

A working family living in a more expensive home is already contributing far more on both a nominal and a relative basis to the system through higher income taxes, as well as a higher amount spent on other taxes or services that fund or free up funding elsewhere in the economy… than someone in a smaller home or someone who isn’t working. They typically need much higher incomes to live in the house and pay off their mortgages, meaning they’re taxed much more than those without the same overheads.

I don’t think you can argue these households aren’t paying their fair share just because of council tax.

However, I DO think there are far too many people living in expensive homes who don’t need or have high income… and therefore don’t contribute proportionally in other taxes relative to their property wealth. Who are they? Generally people who bought their home on very low multiples 30+ years ago, paid the mortgage off fairly easily and now pay little more than the basic tax on their retirement income.

It’s this group which underpays their tax relative to their home, and is also sat on some of the largest untaxed gains in wealth I can think of. But how to tell them to pay… without losing all your votes or facing cries from people that they are asset rich and cash poor and that they can’t possibly be asked to release equity from their home to pay anymore because “they’ve paid taxes all their life”. I don’t think paying taxes for eg 40 years in work is a reason not to have to share the burden more equally for 30 odd years out of work!

So… for a property tax to work I think it needs to be looked at on a net household tax basis otherwise it totally undermines the principle that “higher value homes aren’t paying their fair share”.

Or… we need to find a better way of taxing the unearned gains people have made in their primary residence which is by far my preferred approach.

And, at the same time … as someone who is in one of those houses, i don’t mind paying a bit more but if it doesn’t come with cuts in the welfare bill, improvements in the NHS, and more spending in defence… we’ll be following suit with many other families I know with roots around the country in retiring early, selling up, moving up north to buy a big beautiful house for half the cost, pushing up property prices everywhere else and generally paying as little tax as we can.

Nope