To be scared of Labours Land tax

[Dragongirl10]

Just read about this, Labour are proposing a Land Value Tax on any land owned, could cost thousands a year for anyone even with a small house, not just the rich....they have not publicised this at all.

People with modest homes could be forced to sell or go into debt, or be repossessed...

Remember that since the review of the council tax system has not commenced, never mind completed, it is premature to assume that any particular alternative will be chosen, and more than premature to assume that anybody knows what the charging structure might be.

Hello, Oliversmumsarmy

I had a look. Let's suppose you were on a junior London salary of £1200 p.a. in 1979.

Let's assume that this table and my assumptions are correct (by all means provide your own calculation if you disagree) www.ifs.org.uk/ff/income.xls

The personal allowance in 1979/80 was £1165

So you would only have been paying 30% tax on £35 of your annual income.

You tax would have been £10.50 for the year.

So your personal effective tax rate would have been about 1%.

There may be many reasons why you were hard up at the start of your career, but high tax rates were not one of them.

Would it affect agricultural land?

Land round here is £10 000 per acre. If they have to pay 0.85% ad mentioned earlier on an 800 acre farm that would be £68 000 per year to find!

"A Labour government will give local
government extra funding next year.
We will initiate a review into
reforming council tax and business
rates and consider new options
such as a land value tax, to ensure
local government has sustainable
funding for the long term."

Agricultural land does not AFAIK pay council tax or business rates. Your suggested percentage figure is not mentioned in the manifesto for anything.

I've been where you are now, Piglet, and I grew out of it.

You can try to insult me, but it only shows who you are.

Pigletjohn. I was not in London and tax wasn't the only thing that was deducted from my salary.

I cant remember what exactly but I know I was forced to pay Union fees as well as pension, NI and other professional fees and insurances. The list was long. The biggest deduction was definitely Tax.

It is not as simple as looking up taxes and trying to work backwards.

So should we should ignore policies in all manifestos that have not been 100% confirmed, and include an accurate description of how they will be executed?

Surely our decision could only then be made on personality and existing party affiliation? Or the throwing of a dice.

FWIW I have never read the Express in my life, and read about LTV in the Independent. I have not changed my opinion
I never said I thought it was
I am just worried if it does happen as we can only lose.

I'm also a landlord which is another issue with the whole concept, but, unfortunately, we would have to pass the costs on as we couldn't shoulder them in their entirety.

Whoops. 'Never said I thought it was set in stone'.

genevia is right. For every pound taken in additional tax a pound will not be spent on service industries, meals out, in the shops etc. So suddenly the low paid waitress finds her services are no longer required. It will have an impact on the economy.

Well in that scenario the government would spend it instead. So that's nonsense. Higher taxes are not deflationary unless public spending is also lower.

I think that the issue is that people are greedy and want to have their cake and eat it.

• Rich pensioners want to pay no tax sitting on £1m houses while those working, but can't afford a comparable lifestyle pay for it. Then they expect to not pay towards care, and be able to pass their house inheritance tax free down to their children because they 'worked hard for it' .
• People on high incomes expect to be able to afford to live in a nice place with 'good school catchment' (and take up free places in schools) while not paying to support other children through.
• Those with wealth and lower incomes expect to pay sweet FA in and anyone who challenges this is called 'jealous'. Well of course they are fucking jealous slaving away and living in a one bed flat while paying three times as much tax potentially as someone living in a one bed property.
• There is a shocking level of entitlement about staying in houses. If I posted that it wasn't fair because I can't afford to live in the house I'm in I'd be told to suck it up and move.
• There has been previous little mention on this thread about the shit out education system is in. Ah hang on that'll be because London schools are funded higher than others and the reality hasn't bitten yet there of classes of 35 children being common place I guess. Let's shaft the kids a bit more eh, my generation had free university this is now a distant dream.

Bizarrely enough I am someone the system is kind to, own house pretty much outright etc but it's just so wrong the greed on this thread.

£1m property not 1 bed....

LVT I am I right in thinking there is no point then in getting planning permission to improve an area by building shops schools etc as the people who live there would have to pay up or sell up as the LVT would increase because their "community" got better so increased the LVT.

What does this mean

· It is just, because it returns to the community the increase in site value created by the community and in many cases funded by the community
.. .
How can buying a house be funded by the community? Why should the increase in value be returned to the community.

What happens when you live in on an unlit single track road with about 20 houses miles from any shops schools and any services. Even the police have said they don't police our area. Or are we supposed to fund other people

O Yea Ireland where you pay every time you see a doctor. And pay for all your school books.

Increasinglymiddleaged, some of the points of being entitled to stay in a property were made during the Bedroom Tax debates.

I thought we agreed then that it's cruel to make people move because they can't afford to keep their current home. Because Old People, and we all be that one day, want to stay in the home and their community they are used to.

Wanting to keep your home is not an entitlement.

Yes it is entitlement Chardonnay I disagree. Many older people manage to move.

Yes, but many more don't want to.

Forcing them to move by increasing the financial pressure on them is no different than the bedroom tax.

Oh yeah, the government is going to spend the money on retail and leisure!!!

Hope you like the thought of derelict high streets and town centres.

And lots of unemployed waiters and retail staff too.

Many people Chardonnay would like to live somewhere or in a house they can't afford.

I trying to work out where I can save if I had to pay higher taxes.

Cleaner would have to go, and I don't think I'll be the only one to discontinue her services. She's take less money, and will need bigger state top up.

French and violin lessons, same.

I will shop less in Waitrose, I suppose as will many other people, but will this help their employees and suppliers? No, staff will be laid off.

Before you flame me, I don't actually have a cleaner and I have spared my DSc the violin lessons I hated as a child, but I used the examples to show that things aren't exactly black and white.

How is it different to the bedroom tax?

We all agreed Bedroom Tax was wrong?

People want to stay in their home and not be priced out of it, it's not about wanting to live somewhere else unaffordable.

Wow I thought that post was satirical

I didn't agree the bedroom tax was wrong. I think it's fine as long as:

1. There are smaller properties available for people to move to in the same area
2. Allowances are made for special circumstances related to health and disability.

And I'm not sure it even is the same. The bedroom tax relates to people renting on HB. This relates to pensioners who are living in houses that they usually own outright, so have often significant assets. Many would be able to afford the tax anyway - my parents and in law's would. Those that can't are also likely to up shit creek when the roof starts leaking/ boiler goes wrong etc so would probably have a more comfortable life in a more modest property. Plus I imagine if you desperately wanted to stay put you could get a lifetime mortgage paid out of your estate to pay for the tax.

fab39ish yes that looks a lot better prospect for someone who pays school fees and is caught by the new higher income tax and loses their personal allowance.

No one who is challenging the labour tax and spending ideas wants a free ride, I pay marginal tax at 62per cent we do pay more than our way, we are saying there is a limit to how much tax we will pay and there is a point where the ways of working in other countries look more desirable. The point lots of posters on here are making time and time again is there comes a point when it isn't worth working that hard if you aren't getting the benefit, people will deal with that in different ways to either lower their income tax and other tax payments, spend less (thereby giving less back to their local economy and costing jobs there) or by leaving the country (the very high paid). At that point where will this extra money come from? In my view it will be the next layer who start to have to pay more, so those currently paying 40% tax will have to pay more, VAT goes up etc, this land tax hits the "rich" south east, or will labour limit their spending plans? I don't think they will.

You assume that people living in big, or relatively big houses have disposable income, which is wrong. Many of my neighbours have been in their homes for over 30 years.Downsizing costs a lot of money, provided you can find a suitable house.

Forcing people to lose their homes is wrong.

Downsizing to a smaller house frees up a lot of money.