Do you feel there will be an increase in illegal immigrants with a Labour government

[DistinguishedSocialCommentator]

What is Labour's plan to stop the boat people? How will this stop those who want to come to England via channel crossings illegally??

What in your opinion is encouraging the boat/channel crossing illeagle immigrants to want to come to England even though they are already is a very safe and generous nation?

IMO, most that come to England now, the vast majority are young men looking for a better financial future. My opinion is based on the basis that if I was in a war-torn country and wanted to escape persecution etc. I would leave the country WITH MY FAMILY and would be grateful once in a safe country and not risk our helth/lift etc crossing the channel in small dingys.

So, do you feel that potential illegal immigrants are just hoping that Labour gets into power as they are seen as a softer touch??

We. ie my parents and siblings came to England in the early 60's from Asia via legal routes as England need workers - parents rented a room and built up their wealth from there.

FYI: If you go abroad, lets say to China/India/Newzealand/etc for a hols, fall in love with someone and want to marry them - just check out the criteria that you have to meet to sponsor a visa and then the massive costs for them to come over and then become a Brtish cotozen after 5 years of good standing - the person coming over is entitled to nothing other than access to NHS and this is allowed as the person/s coming over undergo strict medical tests - therefore very unfair on those wanting to come to England via legal routes

England needs skilled and unskilled workers and those who are coming over legally go through many tests before being allowed here and massive costs. It is very unfair to allow the boat people etc to settle in England when they have already entered a safe nation IMO

IMO, we created the stife in Afhghransatan, Libya, Syria and Iraq along with our boss the good old USA

People, and families do not help in war-torn nations and the very poor nations - most that come over illegally from the poorer, very poorer parts of the world pay thousands to gangs etc - Therefore, these people are not the real poor people who may be earning 50p a day for backbreaking work

I'm all for immigration - we too had considered the USA and Portugal but stayed in the UK. I welcome those who want to come to our country but in my judgement, these people must be scrended just like those people who come to Englland via legal routes

That too. I didn't think it worth listing the complete list of "unhappily", there are just too many. The only "happily" I could think of was an ironic one 🤦‍♂️

We already do. It is by value via council tax. It can't be by volume as it would be unsustainable. The government already have to subsidise farming as it isn't really profitable in its own right.

There is a third way: value of unimproved land based on what you could do with it assuming that everything around it is still there.

• Farm land, you've not got planning permission to build, there's no services nearby, no utilities, it's going to be relatively cheap per hectare.
• Some duke somewhere with a massive mansion in a huge park, well it's got buildings on it so if you knocked those down to revert to "unimproved" you'd get planning permission to build more buildings, it's got roads and utilities already, so it's worth far more per hectare than farm land.
• And if you own the freehold of plot containing a block of flats in London, the value of that land without those flats on it will still be eyewateringly expensive per hectare.

Interesting thought. The snag with the second one is that most, if not all, the buildings in that category are listed and so couldn't be knocked down. Also, the inheritance tax rules are different for that category too which is why so many are donated to the national trust.

The flats is an interesting case study though. On the assumption that it is substitution (you'd have to drop the council tax in order to apply a different tax), would it actually benefit overall?

I'm not saying that they should be knocked down, I'm saying that the existence of buildings should be taken as evidence that planning consent for that land would be granted if the buildings weren't there and the land should be valued accordingly.

Council tax isn't an approximation to land value tax because the occupier pays it, not the owner, even if the occupier is a poor renter. To be a progressive tax on unhideable wealth, the owner must pay land tax.

Also, the inheritance tax rules are different for that category too which is why so many are donated to the national trust.

Or placed in intergenerational trusts with the trust beneficiaries changing every time someone dies, to avoid paying inheritance tax full-stop whilst keeping the house.

The primary argument for an annual land value tax is that you can't hide land the way you can money.

So you would want to introduce a new, additional tax? I am not sure that would win many votes. Also, many flats are leasehold meaning that there is no income for the freeholder. That would make the system you suggest unworkable.

In instances where the freeholder collects rent, they already pax tax on that rental income, so again, you are proposing a further, additional tax on top of that income tax, and the council tax paid by the occupier.

I don't think that would win many votes either.

I propose replacing all taxes with land value tax, as it's the fairest form of tax and land can't be hidden in the Cayman Islands.

Leaseholders pay ground rent to the freeholder.

Without the boat people, this country is finished because of migration. My Bulgarian neighbour came here illegally in the 1990s (paid a Spaniard to marry her, then divorced). She has been brining her relatives for cancer treatment from Bulgaria (registered them with the GP) for the past 20 years. She is a single mother, getting all the benefits and not declaring multiple properties in Bulgaria she is renting. I find this disgusting, but don't feel I can report her, because she volunteers this information and I can't break this confidence. Pleading poverty, she sent her children to a boarding school on a bursary, even though she is wealthy. One day when yet another relative came for treatment, I gingerly asked her - do you think this is fair, never paid into the system and using it, she looked at me and said 'Bulgaria and UK have a medical treatment agreement', any Brit can go and get treatment in Bulgaria. Shameless, manipulative and entitled. And this is all our fault.

In the event of there being no annual ground rent, it's the responsibility of the landowner to sell the lease at a price that will cover his/her land tax obligations for the duration of the lease.

So, the leaseholder would have to buy their lease, and pay rent? How would that work?

Starmer has already said that he will be targeting the root of the problem: the gangs themselves.
No gang- how are they meant to come in? No way, so tge numbers will plummet.
No gang = no black money that goes God knows to finance God knows which dark purposes. No fake passports sold like candy around the world.
To me that is a much much better policy that just ignoring the existance of networks of dangerous individuals taking a lot of cash, while removing illegal immigrants to Rwanda, and paying for that.

Read my most recent post. The landowner would have to price the lease to cover the cost of the land tax.

For most of my life, ground rent on leaseholds has been the norm. Since the post you've replied to, I've spotted that ground rents were effectively outlawed from 2018. I agree with this law. The consequence of it is that land owners would have to price leases carefully.

That only works for the first sale of the lease though, i.e. new builds. For existing leaseholds, the freeholder often hasn't had involvement for decades, and would only be involved again when and if the lease expires. There are usually management fees, but again, these are often not managed by the freeholder, but a management company and they go towards the ongoing maintenance of the building.

I think your proposal would only work for a very small number of properties, it certainly isn't workable for existing properties.

It will work for everywhere freehold, which is most houses, and can be phased in for leaseholds as leases expire.

OK, so scenario:-

Developer builds a block of flats in the 60s, and sells 99 year leases, from that day to this, they have no further involvement until the leases expire. Today, each occupant owns the lease, pays a management fee to a company that manages the property but is likely not the original developer. The occupants also pay council tax.

How would that be handled in your plan?

Second scenario:-
I bought my house freehold. I paid stamp duty (which arguably is already a land tax). I pay council tax too.

How would that be handled differently?

I'm not trying to be a pain, just interested as to how it would all work. Something has to change, so everything is worth consideration.