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...

Labour haven't produced any figure at all as far as I know but the campaign behind this idea defines a concessionary rate as 0.85% and a standard rate as 3% (hence a £10K tax bill for a £600k London sem

Do you really think that Labour would impose such a bill in such a situation?

It would be political suicide for decades to come.

For Labour to mention LVT in their manifesto must mean that it is something that has been discussed. Otherwise there would be no mention.

A land tax could just be a replacement for council tax.....

True worry is that the Tories are not ruling out tax increases so who knows what they have up their sleeve.

Or perhaps it's the politics of wanting to fund things like social care, education and health properly so that you don't have 40 children in a class or seriously sick people lying on a trolley for eight hours in A&E.

Heaven forbid that rich people contribute to the general pot. Roger Moore was bang on when he mentioned that when he collected charitable donations on a plane, people in economy were generous, while people in first class refused to donate a thing. That's how the rich get to be rich, I guess.

Vague costing for where i live would be approximately £2125 at .85 and over 7k at 3%

Bottom figure is ok though still more than we are paying over 7k would obviously be a bit of a stretch

That's obviously IF it comes in and IF it comes in at those figures

the whole story was whipped up by the Tory Party Publicity Department to put something in their papers the week before the election.

Cement, where did you get the idea that you will be stuck with a massive tax bill? Are you a tax-dodging non-dom with a huge estate, like the boss of the Daily Mail?

"True worry is that the Tories are not ruling out tax increases so who knows what they have up their sleeve."

I suppose following the logic of the skittish on this thread, we should all be terrified of the Tories imposing a 90% flat tax rate on everyone. Because they haven't ruled it out.

Did Tory HQ put it in the labour manifesto, PigletJohn?

There's pretty good reports of the impact of LVT downloadable from here:

www.andywightman.com/hot-topics/lvt

The London Assembly also looked at LVT here:

www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/tax-trial-land-value-tax-london

no, they put it in their House Journals.

If they had confined themselves to what the manifesto said, they wouldn't be able to fill a line.

So, who put in in the Labour Manifesto then?

Sure, the super rich like the duke of Westminster who avoided IHT. But most high earners do already contribute quite a lot "to the general pot", you know! I'm classed as a high earner, although nothing like the super rich, and I paid over £5k in tax last month (for one month).

I'd happily pay more if I thought it would go to the right places or that it wouldn't be a slippery slope. But i have zero faith that it would. All I've seen in the labour manifesto are pipe dreams and ways to make people pay more and more and more for what will turn out to be less and less. It assumes blithely that corporations and individuals will keep on doing that. And I just don't think they will. History shows us that.

How the cock do people get worked up about this, which isn't a thing, and conclude the sensible thing to do is merrily vote for the party destroying the NHS, state education and persecuting the disabled?

I'm baffled.

How the cock do people get worked up about this, which isn't a thing, and conclude the sensible thing to do is merrily vote for the party destroying the NHS, state education and persecuting the disabled?

Because they are astroturfers and it is their job?

"Heaven forbid that rich people contribute to the general pot"

The problem is that an LVT does not reliably indicate who is rich (see the example posted by tiggytape)

Chardonnay, have you actually read what the Labour Manifesto says?

Give us all a good laugh.

Copy the exact wording here for us to look at.

"Because they are astroturfers and it is their job?"

More likely to be JAM, aged about 45-55 living in London and the SE

The problem is that an LVT does not reliably indicate who is rich

Actually, it pretty much does. The problem is that on MN people seem to only count disposable income as wealth.

So a wee bit like rates used to work, then?

Not seen a single post on here say they will vote Tory as a result of this proposal.

It is a discussion as to how it might be ensured that it is fairly implemented, if it is implemented, given regional and property market factors.

I did.

Go on then. Copy the exact wording so we know what we should be scared of.

Page 88, if anyone cares to take a look. I've closed it now - had enough reading (although the Labour manifesto does have some pretty pictures in it, unlike the Tory manifesto) so can't be bothered to re-open to copy & paste.

I dont remember rates

Labour believes in devolving power
to local communities but that requires the necessary funding follows.
You cannot empower local government if you impoverish it.
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.
Labour is the party of devolution
and we believe in handing back power to communities. We will devolve powers over economic development, complete with the necessary funding.
It is through the planning system that communities can shape the kinds of high streets, homes and amenities that they want. But under the Conservatives, planning has been
under-resourced and disempowered, with democratic planning authorities unable to stand up to big developers. As a result, planning decisions have become too in uenced by narrow economic considerations, with developers’ pro t taking precedence over community priorities.

Page 86.