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

Just more evidence of why they are no longer the party of workers. It's a complete abdication of their responsibility to both working people and those on benefits. They seem hell-bent on discouraging productivity, aspiration and independence, whilst rewarding inefficiency and ever-increasing dependency.

Maybe Labour will ask them to take in a refugee for a tax discount? I agree with what you say though, not everyone will want a student in their back bedroom to pay a tax, although many younger people are now doing it to pay their mortgage debt I hear? I suppose the thinking is that if you are able to run a big house you are able to do some part-time work to pay your taxes?

Just more evidence of why they are no longer the party of workers. It's a complete abdication of their responsibility to both working people and those on benefits. They seem hell-bent on discouraging productivity, aspiration and independence, whilst rewarding inefficiency and ever-increasing dependency.

Pat McFadden - every meeting is about who we can tax more.

I suspect that Labour and many of their supporters would consider that a legitimate position. Expecting single-occupancy homeowners who have planned ahead, done the right things and worked to minimise their reliance on the state to take in a lodger to use their home more "efficiently". If they choose not to, they should be castigated for their selfishness and hit with higher taxes for failing to be more efficient. We'll also conveniently ignore whether there are suitable, affordable homes for them to move into. Not our problem.

IMO, it's consistent with Labour's view that individuals don't really own anything. They are merely in possession of assets through the benevolence of the state, assets that can be eroded by a thousand little cuts at will. So I guess it's rather naïve to expect to have any real control over the home you thought you had acquired by trading your labour for income.

The welfare state especially under Labour, is a complete bastardisation of the principles on which the modern welfare state was founded.

"The State, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family."

William Beveridge

From his 1942 report, widely regarded as the blueprint for the welfare state.

He would be turning in his grave.

I suspect that Labour and many of their supporters would consider that a legitimate position. Expecting single-occupancy homeowners who have planned ahead, done the right things and worked to minimise their reliance on the state to take in a lodger to use their home more "efficiently". If they choose not to, they should be castigated for their selfishness and hit with higher taxes for failing to be more efficient. We'll also conveniently ignore whether there are suitable, affordable homes for them to move into. Not our problem.

IMO, it's consistent with Labour's view that individuals don't really own anything. They are merely in possession of assets through the benevolence of the state, assets that can be eroded by a thousand little cuts at will. So I guess it's rather naïve to expect to have any real control over the home you thought you had acquired by trading your labour for income.

The welfare state especially under Labour, is a complete bastardisation of the principles on which the modern welfare state was founded.

"The State, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family."

William Beveridge

From his 1942 report, widely regarded as the blueprint for the welfare state.

He would be turning in his grave.

Not so much ‘who’ because it’s always the same people
More a case of ‘how’

Pat McFadden - every meeting is about who we can tax more.

I suspect that Labour and many of their supporters would consider that a legitimate position. Expecting single-occupancy homeowners who have planned ahead, done the right things and worked to minimise their reliance on the state to take in a lodger to use their home more "efficiently". If they choose not to, they should be castigated for their selfishness and hit with higher taxes for failing to be more efficient. We'll also conveniently ignore whether there are suitable, affordable homes for them to move into. Not our problem.

IMO, it's consistent with Labour's view that individuals don't really own anything. They are merely in possession of assets through the benevolence of the state, assets that can be eroded by a thousand little cuts at will. So I guess it's rather naïve to expect to have any real control over the home you thought you had acquired by trading your labour for income.

The welfare state especially under Labour, is a complete bastardisation of the principles on which the modern welfare state was founded.

"The State, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family."

William Beveridge

From his 1942 report, widely regarded as the blueprint for the welfare state.

He would be turning in his grave.

They have the option to rent out rooms?

Land value is complex. As already discussed, additional taxation will lower it just as removing planning restrictions can increase it. However, it can also be altered by private contract especially a freeholder with covenants not to build at all on it, can mean the value is garden land only aka agricultural land value. There are quite a few anomalous restrictive covenants kicking around and ancient land rights that could be freed up and of course, planning freedom will release a lot of it. However, sometimes there are reasons for restrictive covenants. The neighbour at the end of my road in London has a very big garden, apparently there was an underground stream and it was earmarked as a flood risk to build there. Now whether the demand for housing is going to respect things like flood risks and habitats etc is up for discussion.
I think the only way to build successfully is to devolve and have the local authorities and builders and whole communities coming up with clear plans where the whole community can benefit and where there are real promises for infrastructure improvements. I think there may be some such plans in the making in the Cambridge corridor for example. I am not sure how far they got with that in the end. But so far, Labour are massively behind on building the houses they promised in the manifesto. You cannot just build blindly, it requires clear buy in from communities and long term strategy and cannot be subject to sudden PM changes or party changes. That is why it needs devolution at the local level and private state partnerships.

That seems to be a quite useful bargaining point 'We'll reduce the fees for EU students (so we get more in and keep the universities afloat and vaguely competitive), you do the same for UK students'.

'The papers' - in your case, the Telegraph - aren't exactly going to include any progress in respect of a reciprocal arrangement or greater freedom to work/study in the EU if it were to be available - and in any case, somebody has to make the first offer in a negotiation and show they actually mean it; otherwise you get something more akin to Trump 'there's a great deal, a beautiful deal, it'll all be great' and the other party saying 'nope, not heard any of that and in any case, we're not selling/stopping/whatever'.

Ok that’s not LVT then based on property value, that’s more like income tax based on income.

If the aim is to tax the "wealthy" , then I suppose anyone living alone in a large home must now be considered wealthy. After all, we've apparently decided that wealth is measured by the unrealised value of the house you live in, rather than your actual ability to pay, or the actual profit.

People can't have it both ways.

Instead of both council tax and stamp duty. Lots if currently untaxed land being held by builders would also be subject to LVT.

Students have to have settled status ie living here for 3years before application for a Student loan
That can’t be 3years at Uni though

UK students are classed as International students in EU countries so don’t get any sweeping reductions compared to any other International Students
The same as before.
I’m not aware according to the papers that Starmer has got a better deal for ours

I understand Starmers looking for a NATO job atm.

That seems to be a quite useful bargaining point 'We'll reduce the fees for EU students (so we get more in and keep the universities afloat and vaguely competitive), you do the same for UK students'.

'The papers' - in your case, the Telegraph - aren't exactly going to include any progress in respect of a reciprocal arrangement or greater freedom to work/study in the EU if it were to be available - and in any case, somebody has to make the first offer in a negotiation and show they actually mean it; otherwise you get something more akin to Trump 'there's a great deal, a beautiful deal, it'll all be great' and the other party saying 'nope, not heard any of that and in any case, we're not selling/stopping/whatever'.

Students have to have settled status ie living here for 3years before application for a Student loan
That can’t be 3years at Uni though

UK students are classed as International students in EU countries so don’t get any sweeping reductions compared to any other International Students
The same as before.
I’m not aware according to the papers that Starmer has got a better deal for ours

I understand Starmers looking for a NATO job atm.

I thought the controversy was over the fact that EU students could qualify for student loans previously but that it was very hard to enforce pay back if they went home. What advantage will UK students going to European universities get in return?

I think the drop in EU students by two thirds probably has more to do with it than anything targeted at the ones who pay the lower fees here.

ATM, the large increase in overseas fees to EU students has roughly balanced the income, but that's a risky game and hasn't exactly helped keeping courses open for everybody, as numbers are still down too much to make them pay when you take into account staffing, premises, etc - by cutting the cost a bit, that could mean a significant increase in university revenues again and mean fewer universities need to make significant redundancies or dump courses mid degree.

Bit of a derail but Starmer is throwing U.K. students under the bus on his way out

This from the Telegraph

Starmer offers EU students cut-price tuition fees in Brexit reset talks
Major Brussels concession could save European undergraduates £28,000 – and cost UK’s higher education sector £500m

I wouldn’t want to leave this thread out of a bit of artwork I’ve posted on another
In for a penny as they say
Looking forward into the not too distant future