From the comments here:
-------------------------------
Kj wrote, "everyone loves a tax credit".
That was the thinking, Kj. It's the first of the five politically acceptable steps to LVT which I thought up as an attempt to get "from here to there". Each of them is supposed to be so obviously neutral or beneficial to the majority of voters that it would be difficult to argue against them.
I may have mentioned them here before but for the record they are:
1. Introduce an Income Tax credit for any Council Tax paid during the year for every UK resident. So for every pound of Council Tax you pay, you pay one pound less in Income Tax.
2. Do the same for UBR and Income Tax/Corporation Tax for any citizen running a UK business or any company registered within the UK.
3. Replace Council tax with UBR for everyone
4. Replace HMG's current Social Security and Pensions system and income tax personal allowances with a cash payment for each UK resident of 80% of the UBR take divided evenly between all eligible residents.
5. Abolish all taxes other than UBR, increasing the UBR to compensate for the loss of revenue.
Just a rough draft which could probably be improved and definitely not the only possible route (our esteemed host has also come up with some good ideas) but it's important to try and devise strategies like this if we're to have any chance of seeing LVT implemented soon.
-----------------------
Seems fair enough to me, whether we call it Council Tax, Domestic Rates or UBR is neither here nor, it's all "LVT". But for clarity...
1. I would make it absolutely clear that you get a £1 income tax reduction for every £1 LVT you pay, and not the other way round, so that it is clear that your irreducible base level of tax is determined by the rental value of the land which you or your business occupies, and that the income tax is just an extra bit on top for high earners in small houses (which will be phased out anyway - see 5.)
2. and 3. Agreed. But again, what people overlook is that in the UK, income tax is only a third of all taxes collected from earned incomes/private wealth etc. For every £1 income tax you pay, on average, you are paying £2 in other taxes (mainly VAT or NIC).
4. That's a presentational thing. For half of households, the "cash payment" would be less than their LVT bill, so to save fraud and error, admin and hassle, it would be netted off at source and the LVT bill reduced accordingly. For the other half of households, the "cash payment" would be higher than their LVT bill, so the LVT would be deducted first and those households only given the balance in cash (again, to save fraud and error etc). If the "cash payment" is your only or main source of income, then you will have to minimise your LVT bill, e.g. by sharing a house in a cheap area etc.
5. That can be done in stages.
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Derek's rough draft on LVT implementation
My latest blogpost: Derek's rough draft on LVT implementationTweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 17:16
Labels: Land Value Tax
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Also until income tax is abolished, you'll need to have the rates paid by tenants, like CT, so LVT will be crediteable by everyone, but that's details.
I agree that number 4 is a presentational thing but that doesn't mean it's unimportant. One of the things that I found really interesting about my move to Canada is that everyone here completes a tax return every year. And the surprising thing is that they all want to.
Why? Well the basic reason is that HMCG overcharges everyone every year, so when Joe Canuck fills in a tax return, he expects to get a nice cheque from the government in return. Hence eagerness.
Contrast that with the UK where HMG automates the tax payment to such an extent for typical wage-slaves that they only have to fill in a return when they owe the government money. Hence reluctance.
Now that's just a presentational thing of the same sort too but even though I would argue that the UK system is more efficient, I can't deny that people love getting that HMCG cheque. Sure they're just getting their own money back but that doesn't seem to matter.
That's why I think that a CI should consist of a cheque in the post every month. It may not be economically sensible. But politically sensible? It's pure gold.
Good plan. Maybe the straight swap between income tax/LVT would mean that capital values won't take such a big hit, depending on the tax rate on rental values applied.
Kj, first comment, good point.
D, but don;t forget how vindictive and spiteful people are, they will HATE to see it if other people get a cash refund and they don't, simply because they live in a much more expensive area or a larger house.
Kj, second comment, I do not know what will happen to selling prices, there's only one way to find out...
"so to save fraud and error, admin and hassle, it would be netted off at source and the LVT bill reduced accordingly."
Given the DWP's latest performance, I wouldn't bet on it.
B, the DWP get away with it because people like IDS don't realise how jealous they guard their empire.
Which is why we can start again, each council employs about thirty people to do the valuations (one per postcode sector or council ward) and the same people are in charge of netting off each household's CI entitlement.
They can spot it straight away if eight people claim to be living in a 2-bed flat, or if the adults concerned have never been on the electoral roll, if the children concerned are not registered at local schools etc.
So that's about ten thousand people running the entire welfare system and half the tax system, which is better than 100,000 people are DWP and 80,000 people at HMRC.
Sadly that is so. There is a lot of envy about.
MW also wrote "So that's about ten thousand people running the entire welfare system and half the tax system, which is better than 100,000 people are DWP and 80,000 people at HMRC."
I'm on holiday in the UK this week and was listening to a Radio 4 panel/phone-in this morning talking about George Osborne's promise to save 10 billion quid on welfare. The panel were all racking their brains on how it could be done without freezing welfare spending for the next five years.
As you've previously pointed out it's obvious in the light of those numbers of employees at the DWP. If I'd had a phone I might well have tried calling in...
D, indeed.
As Bayard reminded us, the Work Programme costs £5 billion (a year? who knows) and the running/admin costs of the DWP, housing benefit, fraud and error and overpayments are at least £10 billion a year. So that's a £10 billion a year saving I've made during my evening off.
You forgot step zero: to default debt, system wide.
Thereby opening the door for everyone to do what lvt has failed to achieve for 10000 years.. . Adopt it.
Post a Comment