There's a scene that I've had in my head that, no matter how crass or crude I make it, I just can't shift. It goes something like this:
A group of eight super-posh friends are sitting around the impressively filled dining table. Landowners, property investors, fund accountants, stock market speculators, it doesn't really matter. This is the hoi polloi and the food miles in front of them could get to the moon and back.
A question pierces the general chatter, to noone in particular - "So, have you had a good budget or a bad budget?". The pause is brief before the rib-tickling, back-slapping, caviar-spilling, slightly horsey laughter begins.
"Good one Jeremy but stop being a pillock and pass me some more ham."
Inverted snobbery on my part? The classic Scottish trait of looking down on success? Perhaps, but I hope and think not.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has described George Osborne's budget as "clearly regressive" despite assurances from both of the coalition's party leaders that they would be a progressive force.
It is perhaps unfair to single out the Lib Dems for special blame but, as the Guardian picks up on today, Nick Clegg stated that June's budget would mean that "the richest are paying the most... as a proportion of their income". I'm sure there is a lot of good in this budget but a Robin Hood redistribution it clearly isn't and the coalition's defence is particularly telling.
1 - The loudest rebuttal to today's headlines is that it's yesterday's news and a rehashed narrative. Yes, without a hint of irony or indeed shame, Lib Dems and Tories are complaining (in alarming harmony) that this has been reported before so is, presumably, invalid.
2 - A Lib Dem activist on Twitter today mentioned that the budget was juggling the need to put a roof over peoples' heads with "making work pay". I would have been surprised if that was a Conservative line but from a Lib Dem that is remarkable. When did the basic right of having a home become a flexible 'nice to have'? I do think political students for decades to come will study these days as an example of how power can corrupt principles.
3 - There has also been a focus on the fact that under Labour the gap between rich and poor grew over the past 13 years. I would rather have hoped that this would instil an urgency to reverse that direction of travel rather than sustain it.
Indeed, on that urgency, I do hope that Labour looks seriously at the recently suggested policy of a one-off tax on wealth. £4000bn of Britain's £9000bn total wealth is owned by only 10% of Brits. A one-off tax of 20% would repay the national debt and bring down the deficit.
Sounds like a policy worthy of deep consideration to me. Just a shame that the party that until recently would have been most likely to adopt it is facing the other way and enjoying dining at the top table too much.
More ham Nick?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree Jeff. But the Lib Dem's were corrupted long ago.
P.S. It's a common mistake but Hoi Polloi refers to the common herd, or, more strictly, the majority.
Actually Jeff, and sorry to nitpick, but hoi polloi is in fact the common masses, or is it are the common masses?
I am Buggered if I know
Couldn't you see that I was being ironic? I was inverting my inverted snobbery which was very, very clever of me.
Ok, fine, I didn't realise that and now look like a dolt.
No, thanks V and B. It means next opportunity I get I can say 'well, actually...' while trying, and failing, to not sound smug.
You're clearly hoping for a bit much there. The only Labour candidate who I could conceviably think would back the wealth tax would be Diane Abbott, as the two Ed's, David and Andy are all New Labour candidate's.Their first thought is always about attracting the middle ground and not what's best for the country.
That wealth does not exist stand alone - it is entitlement to future income. As soon as you say "we're having 20% of that 'wealth' " then it's value will immmediately be lower reflecting the payment of the wealth tax due.
Rather than one off taxes on wealth, we need a tax on the wealthy (and not just those with high incomes). Land is the ultimate intergeneration wealth transfer mechanism. A high land value tax (on an ongoing basis - not one off) is the answer. Indeed this is sometime proposed as a replacement for council tax but this is to aim too low - we should be replacing the bulk of income tax with it as well.
Gets my vote dcomerf.
I can't help but think that we've barely scratched the surface of the debate over how to replace Council Tax, if we do end up replacing it at all.
The problem with your proposal is that Holyrood has power over local taxation but not sufficient control over income tax (pre- or post- Calman) so it's simply not possible to bring in the Land Value Tax that you suggest, as worthy an idea as it may be.
Just one more example of why Calman is a fudge and is unsustainable in the medium term, let alone short term.
I do rail against the idea of land ownership. I'm just back from Cornwall and you have to pay £4 to get to Land's End (to whom it is not entirely clear). Seems bizarre to me.
Anyway, on your point, taxing land gets my vote. I believe it's Green policy so it'll be interesting how the debate will change if they get double digit MSPs next year and can push their agenda harder as a result.
A wealth tax on Tony Blair alone would make sense....
On LVT, I wonder whether the Green types who usually advocate this as a replacement for Council tax have actually thought it through.
In the domestic context, land which houses are built on is already taxed by value, via Council Tax banding/revaluation. So, LVT adds nothing. Certainly there are private homes with extensive gardens which could be the subject of LVT, but there are a few obstacles to that:-
1. Garden size is already captured to a certain extent in Council Tax via its indirect effect on the value of the residential property concerned.
2. These larger gardens, in the cities at least, are usually in conservation areas - thus building is strictly controlled, developable acreage reduced etc. So, the land value may be far less than expected - ground with no development potential is of minimal value.
3. If LVT is introduced, Councils will inevitably be tempted to reduce development controls - planning, building control etc. - in order to raise land values and thus the tax take. So, greenery everywhere will disappear as garden grabbers cash in. Not very green...
The real solution to the Council Tax Problem is simple. Only 20% of council revenues (approx. average)comes from the council tax - the rest comes from Holyrood. So, scrap Council Tax and cut council spending by 20%....congratulations, you have just solved the Council Tax issue by abolishing it altogether.
And before anyone says Councils couldn't cut their costs by 20% - ask yourself whether we really need 32 councils with all the overmanning, duplication of effort etc. that this entails. And consider the explosive growth of this tax under Labour with no tangible return on investment - my first Council Tax bill was under £500 and it is now over £3K. Yet they still can't seem to turn up regularly to empty my bin, which is - literally - my only requirement of them!
Anonymous. I agree with what you're saying - except that council tax is never revalued! Regular revaluations to council tax would be OK (however CT would unfairly penalise property improvements and renovations; and large estates, farmland etc are not subject to council tax).
And abolishing the "CT problem" is not a help towards solving the problem of taxing wealth.
This would be the same IFS who Labour slammed as being innaccurate when they criticism Labour back in April, but now have the full support of Labour when they criticise the new government.
Hypocrites ?
Post a Comment