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:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments(16)

lordenglandofsussex says...
7:32am Fri 25 Jan 13

These Marxist politicians seem to have only one word in their vocabulary: Tax!

Report this post »

Old Ale Man says...
8:51am Fri 25 Jan 13

lordenglandofsussex wrote:
These Marxist politicians seem to have only one word in their vocabulary: Tax!
Marxist, your right there mylord, but them chumpy greens are just trying to make head line again thats all.

Report this post »

NickBrt says...
9:11am Fri 25 Jan 13

I imagine this is cleverly designed to ensure her favourtite people of all time, travellers, get away as usual with paying nothing. How much land does Caroline have, or is it all in Brussels, therefore safe from her silly ideas? Let's all move to a first floor flat then we'll be safe from mad Caroline.

Report this post »

Morpheus says...
9:41am Fri 25 Jan 13

What is she expecting we will do? Go around with a metal detector hoping to find hidden treasure on the land to pay the tax?

Report this post »

fredflintstone1 says...
9:55am Fri 25 Jan 13

Another daft idea - while meanwhile in her constituency (and a Green Party council ward with three Green Councillors), a 77 year old man who has lost both legs is left without heating and hot water for three months during the coldest time of the year.

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.

Report this post »

Fercri Sakes says...
9:56am Fri 25 Jan 13

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."

Report this post »

Fercri Sakes says...
9:59am Fri 25 Jan 13

lordenglandofsussex wrote:
These Marxist politicians seem to have only one word in their vocabulary: Tax!
Ha, Marxist? What are you drinking?

I have seen no sign of workers being paid more and business owners earning less in Brighton. In fact quite the opposite.

Report this post »

Vigilia says...
11:21am Fri 25 Jan 13

Secretary of State to report to Parliament on introducing a levy on land value

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!

Report this post »

bug eye says...
11:52am Fri 25 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes wrote:
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."
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.

Report this post »

Cave Johnson says...
12:54pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Millionaires like Lucas and Kitcat should be paying more.

Report this post »

Dan S. says...
4:28pm Fri 25 Jan 13

@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.

Report this post »

fredflintstone1 says...
4:36pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Dan S. wrote:
@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.
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.

Report this post »

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.

Report this post »

Hoarder12345444 says...
6:04pm Fri 25 Jan 13

I agree the property market is completely unregulated and needs controlling. It's means massive profits for some when property skyrocketed from the late 90's until 2008. It's also meant a lot of others can't buy a house. So basically if you are unfortunate to be born around 1990 or thereabouts unless you have saved or got inheritance you'll have to rent some greedy landlords property, who bought cheap property and now charges massive rents. Awfully unfair and wrong. Needs proper regulation.

Report this post »

Idontbelieveit1948 says...
8:08pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Fercrisaks says "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"

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.

Report this post »

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"?

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree