Which is a shame, as he had the makings of a good Home Secretary, and is mildly in favour of Land Value Tax. I strongly suspect he knows bugger all about nuclear power stations and atoms and molecules and stuff.
Huhne is not mildly in favour of LVT: he is highly in favour .You were at the IEA meeting in Lord North Street where he spoke well.(You must have been because you asked a question that incensed Dave Wetzel,not that I noticed.)As an economic journalist who went onto make millions from selling economic advice,he should by rights be Chancellor,instead of Cable who hosted the big LVT mmeting in the parliamentary committee rooms.Of course instead we've got Osborne who even the Buller thought a bit thick and used to drop on his head. If you can get a bet on about the first ministerial resignation, I should say Huhne or Cable (and the double)within six weeks over tampering with the Capital Gains Tax reform that would slap buy-to-let operators.(Cable has already had to swallow the disappearance of his Mansion Tax,another LVT-ish wolf in sheep's clothing or possible thin edge of a property tax wedge.)
DBC, fair points indeed. I was thinking more of what he said at the Waterstone shindig (to which I linked above), which seemed one-third LVT and two-thirds eco-wibble.
Cable was obviously not very good at negotiating.
His mansion tax (while a good idea in isolation) started at the wrong end. What he should have said to the Tories is, "Sure, by all means lift the IHT threshhold, but for every £100,000 you increase the threshold, I want another two Council Tax Bands (or something), and OK, let's bin the Mansion Tax idea".
4 comments:
Which is a shame, as he had the makings of a good Home Secretary, and is mildly in favour of Land Value Tax. I strongly suspect he knows bugger all about nuclear power stations and atoms and molecules and stuff.
Got it in one, Mark. He was always going to do that.
Huhne is not mildly in favour of LVT: he is highly in favour .You were at the IEA meeting in Lord North Street where he spoke well.(You must have been because you asked a question that incensed Dave Wetzel,not that I noticed.)As an economic journalist who went onto make millions from selling economic advice,he should by rights be Chancellor,instead of Cable who hosted the big LVT mmeting in the parliamentary committee rooms.Of course instead we've got Osborne who even the Buller thought a bit thick and used to drop on his head.
If you can get a bet on about the first ministerial resignation, I should say Huhne or Cable (and the double)within six weeks over tampering with the Capital Gains Tax reform that would slap buy-to-let operators.(Cable has already had to swallow the disappearance of his Mansion Tax,another LVT-ish wolf in sheep's clothing or possible thin edge of a property tax wedge.)
JH, not necessarily.
DBC, fair points indeed. I was thinking more of what he said at the Waterstone shindig (to which I linked above), which seemed one-third LVT and two-thirds eco-wibble.
Cable was obviously not very good at negotiating.
His mansion tax (while a good idea in isolation) started at the wrong end. What he should have said to the Tories is, "Sure, by all means lift the IHT threshhold, but for every £100,000 you increase the threshold, I want another two Council Tax Bands (or something), and OK, let's bin the Mansion Tax idea".
What's not to like about that?
Post a Comment