The Daily Telegraph propaganda piece then opens with this:
Cash-strapped governments (1) have long wanted to grab a bigger share of the wealth we hold in housing (2), now the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) says Britain should adopt a Continental European-style property tax.
Today let's move on to laughable contention number 2.
There seems to be some confusion over what 'housing wealth' is. A sane person would say that a country which has large, modern, attractive houses has more housing wealth than a country with old, small, ugly ones, but Home-Owner-Ism in England and the UK is so ingrained that we don't seem to care about physical housing, all we care about it keep house prices as high as possible, regardless of the cost to the economy.
In any other country, if a new house is built, people say "Great, we are now wealthier by one house." In England, if a new house is built, people say "Boo! We existing home owners are now slightly poorer because the scarcity value of our houses has been diluted". If an earthquake or other natural disaster hits any other country, they put an effort into rebuilding houses and are pleased when people can move out of camps and back into proper houses; in England, existing home owners would be delighted if e.g. Birmingham were flattened by a tornado or earthquake, because it would be good for house prices elsewhere.
Home-Owner-Ism in it nascent form became the dominant political ideology in about 1970 when the % of households who were owner-occupiers passed the 50% mark; ever since then, the NIMBYs and latterly the Greenies have always elected governments who will do their bidding and minimise the amount of physical housing wealth we have; in return, the government has rewarded these protectionists by gradually reducing recurring taxes on housing and increasing stealth taxes on work and enterprise, this increases the £-s-d value of our housing stock, but is that real wealth?
I would volunteer a "no" in reply to that.
And as I explained last Friday, the reason that the UK government is so cash-strapped is precisely because it taxes the productive economy to within an inch of its life and uses the proceeds to push up house prices; the notion that the UK government now wants to stop focusing on paper wealth and enable/encourage real wealth creation is fanciful in the extreme.
Smashed
2 hours ago
11 comments:
"the notion that the UK government now wants to stop focusing on paper wealth and enable/encourage real wealth creation is fanciful in the extreme."
And Daily Telegraph readers must be about the least receptive audience you could imagine.
There is NO wealth in the value/price of a HOME, when will you get it into your thick heads.
It's a HOME where, children are brought up , meals are prepared and cooked, stories are read at bedtime, gardens are tended, TV is watched, radios are listened to, etc. etc. etc.
The vast majority are HOME owners and have no interest whatsoever about what some dink in a suit thinks.
What you and your henchmen are proposing is outright theft, which is really what taxation is all about.
AKH,
I'll see your Telegraph and raise you a Guardian.
You've used "£-s-d" a few times.
I don't understand what it means. Pounds-shilling-pence is my guess?
Anon above,
If there is no 'price/value' in a house, then you should surely just smile rather than hurl abuse, as a % tax on 'price and value' in your model would yield zero pounds tax would it not?
Anon Dink.
AS I tried to point out but you thieves refuse to take it on board.
My home has no monetary value TO ME, it's price/value is set by some dink in a suit.
My home has no value, ergo, cannot be taxed.
Anon1,
This is what happens when you abandon reason for epithets.
"The vast majority are HOME owners and have no interest whatsoever about what some dink in a suit thinks."
The prevalence of property porn protests against your perfunctory prattle. Its simply not true. Even people who most of the time could be described in those terms get uppity when actual house prices are mentioned. I'm related to plenty of them.
"What you and your henchmen are proposing is outright theft"
Ahh...the irony...it is theft (current and ongoing) that we are trying to resolve.
"My home has no monetary value TO ME, it's price/value is set by some dink in a suit"
So, you paid nothing to acquire your home, I take it. You inherited it? You'll give it away to a random stranger when you die? You're too funny....
This is slightly by-the-by however as LVT, by definition, is not a tax on homes. MW doesn't always make that distinction clear because he uses house prices as a readily understandable (and generally reliable) proxy, but he is well aware of it.
LVT actually isn't interested in your home at all, it's interested on the land on which it stands. Take that on board for starters.
Incidentally, you haven't stated what you think the right thing to do would be instead...
@MW Larry Elliott in Guardian who proposed lvt last week is very close to straight anti -Homeownerism ,we live in a One Party Homeownerist State stuff this Monday.OK he is going on about the USA but the inference is obvious.
Anonymous: My home has no monetary value TO ME
In that case, I'll personally take it off you for free.
I'll do better than that! Sign the deeds over to me and I'll pay your council tax. You'll be quids in!
Anon @14:22. What are you worried about? As Derek points out, if what you say (My home has no monetary value TO ME) is true you should be happy to give the title away to him for nothing in exchange for the right to live there free of charge until you die. Then you wouldn't have to pay any land tax and be no worse off than you were before.
Post a Comment