Brighton MP calls for fairer way of being taxed (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Brighton MP calls for fairer way of being taxed
7:00am Friday 25th January 2013 in News
Brighton's Green MP is calling for a fairer form of taxation.
Caroline Lucas, who represents Brighton Pavilion in Parliament, backs the idea of a land value tax, an annual charge on the rental value of land.
The charge, which does not take into account the value of buildings, personal property and other improvements, would replace existing forms of raising revenue.
The bill’s second reading will be discussed in the House of Commons today (January 25).
Dr Lucas said: “Damaging practices in the volatile property market – speculative land-banking, the overvaluation of property and excessive accumulation of debt – were among the key causes of the 2008 financial crisis.
“That’s why, on Friday, I am introducing a private member’s bill on land value tax, which explores how a reform might address these problems.”
See the latest news headlines from The Argus:
- WITH VIDEO: Lorry stuck under bridge in Hove
- Van drove off after three-car accident
- Police appeal for Eastern European language speakers in recruitment blitz
- Police seek men who ran from hit and run
- Giant life-size statues at sizeable exhibit
Add us to your circles on Google+
Comments(16)
Old Ale Man
says...
8:51am Fri 25 Jan 13
lordenglandofsussex wrote:Marxist, your right there mylord, but them chumpy greens are just trying to make head line again thats all.
These Marxist politicians seem to have only one word in their vocabulary: Tax!
NickBrt
says...
9:11am Fri 25 Jan 13
Morpheus
says...
9:41am Fri 25 Jan 13
fredflintstone1
says...
9:55am Fri 25 Jan 13
If you want to do something worthwhile, introduce legislation so that company directors of these social care organisations and hospital managers etc. can be charged with causing unnecessary suffering to residents/patients, and will face a compulsory jail term if found guilty.
Fercri Sakes
says...
9:56am Fri 25 Jan 13
Seems like a sensible idea to me. George Monbiot's article in The Guardian makes complete sense if you'd care to read it: http://www.guardian.
co.uk/commentisfree/
2013/jan/21/i-agree-
with-churchill-shirk
ers-tax
"The most expensive flat in that favourite central London haunt of the international super-rich, One Hyde Park, cost £135m. The owner pays £1,369 in council tax, or 0.001% of its value. Last year the Independent revealed that the Sultan of Brunei pays only £32 a month more for his pleasure dome in Kensington Palace Gardens than some of the poorest people in the same London borough."
Fercri Sakes
says...
9:59am Fri 25 Jan 13
lordenglandofsussex wrote:Ha, Marxist? What are you drinking?
These Marxist politicians seem to have only one word in their vocabulary: Tax!
I have seen no sign of workers being paid more and business owners earning less in Brighton. In fact quite the opposite.
Vigilia
says...
11:21am Fri 25 Jan 13
The Secretary of State shall commission, facilitate and encourage the
investigations, collaborations and research needed to provide Parliament with
a report on how a scheme of local taxation, based on land values, could serve
as a replacement for Council Tax and the National Non-Domestic Rates in
England.
The research shall include the arrangements for the efficient administration
and effective implementation of such schemes of land value taxation in
England.
The Secretary of State must cause the research to begin within 3 months of the
passing of this Act and report to each House of Parliament within 12 months
of the completion of the research on the results of the programme of research
and his assessment of them.
The Secretary of State may make interim reports to Parliament on what
research, collaborations and investigations are needed to supply Parliament
with all of the information needed to evaluate the proposals, setting out a
timescale for the completion of the investigations, as well as the collaborative
work and research that remains outstanding at the time of the Report.
The final Report shall include an assessment of the relative advantages and
disadvantages of continuing with the current system of Council Tax and the
Non-Domestic Rates, and replacing both these forms of taxation with a scheme
of land value tax that is able to generate equivalent tax revenues in order to
contribute to the costs of providing and administering local services supplied by locally elected authorities in England.
She clearly wants to establish a means of charging the land squatters up on the Downs and in Stanmer Park for the land they unlawfully occupy!
bug eye
says...
11:52am Fri 25 Jan 13
Fercri Sakes wrote:but surely he still uses the same council services as everyone else at no extra cost. and we should all pay an equal share. I am sure rich people private education and health care pay the most in taxes etc. taking the burden off the state and supporting not only the vulnerable but the moaning socialist idle too. what about the head of the trade unions who live in council flats? rich but wont pay the new tax, unless the council pay the tax too on their land ownership! not everyone with a big house or high value home is cash rich. mad idea as usual.
God, I thought you lot wanted to reduce your council tax. Now when somebody comes up with an idea to do that you rubbish the idea because it comes from Caroline Lucas.
Seems like a sensible idea to me. George Monbiot's article in The Guardian makes complete sense if you'd care to read it: http://www.guardian.
co.uk/commentisfree/
2013/jan/21/i-agree-
with-churchill-shirk
ers-tax
"The most expensive flat in that favourite central London haunt of the international super-rich, One Hyde Park, cost £135m. The owner pays £1,369 in council tax, or 0.001% of its value. Last year the Independent revealed that the Sultan of Brunei pays only £32 a month more for his pleasure dome in Kensington Palace Gardens than some of the poorest people in the same London borough."
Cave Johnson
says...
12:54pm Fri 25 Jan 13
Dan S.
says...
4:28pm Fri 25 Jan 13
No, and that's precisely the point. Not everyone does receive the same services. A person who lives immediately next to a train or bus station does not receive the same service as someone who lives 5 miles away. But not everyone can live next door to a train or bus station and so those who do receive benefits that others are not able to access. Ultimately, the value of these preferential benefits are measured in the price of land. Since it is fair that a person ought to pay taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive, those in the best location with the highest values ought to pay more.
fredflintstone1
says...
4:36pm Fri 25 Jan 13
Dan S. wrote:But not everyone wants the same services - so it's very subjective. On your theory, people living along Dyke Road or in Roedean would pay less than someone in Surrey Street, next to Brighton Station.
@bug eye "but surely he still uses the same council services as everyone else at no extra cost"
No, and that's precisely the point. Not everyone does receive the same services. A person who lives immediately next to a train or bus station does not receive the same service as someone who lives 5 miles away. But not everyone can live next door to a train or bus station and so those who do receive benefits that others are not able to access. Ultimately, the value of these preferential benefits are measured in the price of land. Since it is fair that a person ought to pay taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive, those in the best location with the highest values ought to pay more.
Dan S.
says...
4:48pm Fri 25 Jan 13
fredflintstone1 wrote:
But not everyone wants the same services - so it's very subjective. On your theory, people living along Dyke Road or in Roedean would pay less than someone in Surrey Street, next to Brighton Station.
If a person did not want or need to live near a train station, then naturally they would opt not to live there. But in foregoing that benefit, they should not have to subsidise the lives of those who do want to live near the station, which is exactly the current state of affairs, wherein taxes bear no relation to benefits received.
Hoarder12345444
says...
6:04pm Fri 25 Jan 13
Idontbelieveit1948
says...
8:08pm Fri 25 Jan 13
So according to you bounteous Caroline has come up with another of these wonderful socialist ideas where everybody pays less do they ?
Fat chance pal, basic economics will tell you this just isn't going to happen.
Unfortunately you pie in the sky characters just cannot understand reality and generally have no idea how anyhting is paid for other than by screwing more and more out of the general population.
Bet you want to join the euro too.
Dan S.
says...
9:34pm Fri 25 Jan 13
Dan S. wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
But not everyone wants the same services - so it's very subjective. On your theory, people living along Dyke Road or in Roedean would pay less than someone in Surrey Street, next to Brighton Station.
If a person did not want or need to live near a train station, then naturally they would opt not to live there. But in foregoing that benefit, they should not have to subsidise the lives of those who do want to live near the station, which is exactly the current state of affairs, wherein taxes bear no relation to benefits received.
Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
So according to you bounteous Caroline has come up with another of these wonderful socialist ideas where everybody pays less do they ?
Err... that's why Adam Smith, that notorious socialist, was in favour of a land value tax, right?
Quote: "Ground-rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. ... Ground-rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them. ... Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government."
Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
Fat chance pal, basic economics will tell you this just isn't going to happen.
Hmm, the IFS, the IMF, the OECD, and the Mirrlees report for the Treasury all seem to disagree with you (http://www.guardian
.co.uk/politics/2012
/nov/08/land-value-t
ax). But then what do they know about "basic economics"?
lordenglandofsussex says...
7:32am Fri 25 Jan 13