State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[ahinton]

I'm suspicious of 'purely' ideologically-driven taxation like 'bedroom tax' 'poll tax' and 'mansion' tax. Sadly, at least in theory, many people agree with these anti-people taxes.

I share your suspicion, largely because they are not only divisive but also rarely achieve the intended results.

[Beef Oven!]

I share your suspicion, largely because they are not only divisive but rarely achieve the intended results.

I agree with you on this. And generally speaking, is it not the way in life that when we do things for the 'wrong' reason, things mainly go awry?

[amateur51]

Not sure about Reckless, this is Priceless!

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/covers/full/1377_big.jpg

[MrGongGong]

You've already started a thread to discuss this, can we please get back on topic? I'll help you with a question. Do you think that the housing tax will help Labour in the run up to the election, or hinder them? Or do you think someone like Clegg will nick it back off them and take the Libdems even further down the polls/up the polls?

I think what would help "US" would be for those in power to make an effort to try and reduce the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest rather than choosing "policies" that appeal to self interest.
Rich people pay too little tax IMV

BUT, because of the fact that (with a few exceptions) everyone in politics agrees on most things we aren't going to get a real choice at all.

[french frank]

I'm suspicious of 'purely' ideologically-driven taxation like 'bedroom tax' 'poll tax' and 'mansion' tax. Sadly, at least in theory, many people agree with these anti-people taxes.

You may be suspicious, but I asked what was WRONG with it. The ideology of the mansion tax is quite the opposite of the ideology of the bedroom tax - and the poll tax. Tax has to be raised to provide services. It seems right to collect it from wealth and to provide (most urgently, not exclusively) the services needed by the less well-off/disadvantaged. That is what seems to me right about one ideology and wrong about the other. That's just a general comment which doesn't imply complete acceptance of the Balls plan. I just don't understand your blanket objection to 'ideology'.

[Beef Oven!]

You may be suspicious, but I asked what was WRONG with it. The ideology of the mansion tax is quite the opposite of the ideology of the bedroom tax - and the poll tax. Tax has to be raised to provide services. It seems right to collect it from wealth and to provide (most urgently, not exclusively) the services needed by the less well-off/disadvantaged. That is what seems to me right about one ideology and wrong about the other. That's just a general comment which doesn't imply complete acceptance of the Balls plan. I just don't understand your blanket objection to 'ideology'.

People ask, what's wrong with the poll tax and bedroom tax, too. Yes, different ideology, same idea - go for the sitting ducks. Just because someone has the ability to pay, or not pay a tax, does not justify it, one way or the other. They are anti-people taxes.

[Beef Oven!]

I think what would help "US" would be for those in power to make an effort to try and reduce the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest rather than choosing "policies" that appeal to self interest.
Rich people pay too little tax IMV

BUT, because of the fact that (with a few exceptions) everyone in politics agrees on most things we aren't going to get a real choice at all.

That's your view. Mine's different. I'm not worried about the gap between rich and poor, I'm concerned that poor people escape their poverty, through the creation of wealth and the raising of living standards. As a former poor person, I can guarantee you it is far better that the whole nation is better off, rather than worrying about what my neighbour owns!

[ahinton]

You may be suspicious, but I asked what was WRONG with it. The ideology of the mansion tax is quite the opposite of the ideology of the bedroom tax - and the poll tax. Tax has to be raised to provide services. It seems right to collect it from wealth and to provide (most urgently, not exclusively) the services needed by the less well-off/disadvantaged. That is what seems to me right about one ideology and wrong about the other. That's just a general comment which doesn't imply complete acceptance of the Balls plan. I just don't understand your blanket objection to 'ideology'.

I know that your post wasn't directed at me, but since you're asking what's "WRONG" with the Balls plan mansion tax (which nevertheless seems somewhat fairer than its LibDem predecessor) - or rather what's not sufficiently fit for purpose about it - is as I wrote earlier and will now summarise:

1. It willl adversely affect property prices on a top-down basis so their sales will generate less tax than they might otherwise have done (this will accordingly disadvantage people whose properties fall below that threshold)
2. It will discourage some people from selling high value properties, including putting them into trust in order to avoid future tax liability
3. It will encourage those wioshing to sell them to break them into bits of which the value of each of which will be below the tax threshold
4. Those properties that do see won't bring in sufficient tax to justify its implementation.

You write that tax "has to be raised to provide services" and that it "seems right to collect it from wealth and to provide (most urgently, not exclusively) the services needed by the less well-off/disadvantaged". Whilst of course that's true in principle, to what extent is it so in practice? Think of the amouts of tax that are spent, for example, on the following:

1. State retirement benefit for the very wealthy
2. State sponsored tax avoidance mechanisms for the very wealthy such as ISAs and pension tax relief (for all that the latter's been pared back considerably of late)
3. A considerable proportion of the defence budget
4. Education, police and other services, most importantly NHS that are also used by the very wealthy.

To what extent and in what ways are these examples of tax receipts being allocated to provide "the services needed by the less well-off/disadvantaged"?

Then look at VAT. Wealth taxes (not that we have them in Britain), Inheritance Tax, Corporation Tax and, to a lesser extent, Capital Gains Tax are among the easier taxes to avoid and/or mitigate; VAT is one of the hardest. This being the case (as I mentioned in the cut-and-thrust on who'd derive what benefit from increases in the income tax Personal Allowance), "the less well off/disadvantaged" are not only unable to avoid paying VAT on their essential VATable purchases but the rate of VAT is the same for them as it is for multi-millionaires; how equitable is that?

[ahinton]

Rich people pay too little tax IMV

I don't doubt that some do; however, not only is that in part because they can afford to avoid it but also your plain statement here does not define how rich is rich or how much of which sorts of tax is enough.

[MrGongGong]

I'm not worried about the gap between rich and poor, I'm concerned that poor people escape their poverty, through the creation of wealth and the raising of living standards.

So the same old thing about consuming more and more and more then ?

Economic "growth" is always at the expense of someone, whether they are next door or in another country.
The assumption that everything should "grow" needs challenging IMV

String quartets ?

[ahinton]

That's your view. Mine's different. I'm not worried about the gap between rich and poor, I'm concerned that poor people escape their poverty, through the creation of wealth and the raising of living standards. As a former poor person, I can guarantee you it is far better that the whole nation is better off, rather than worrying about what my neighbour owns!

I'm with you here to some extent. Unlike you, I am concerned about the gap between rich and poor, not least because of the extent to which it continues to increase but, like you, I'm far more exercised about lifting the poorest out of poverty; there's no way of ever achieveing equality of income or asset values, so some people will always be better off in either or both than others. That said, however, whilst like you I don't worry about what my neighbour owns, I am concerned about the extremely wealthy who use parts of their wealth against the interests of those far poorer than themselves; the trouble with that is that no taxation régime can do a thing about this because it's not about how much anyone has but on how they appropriate it.

[Beef Oven!]

So the same old thing about consuming more and more and more then ?

Economic "growth" is always at the expense of someone, whether they are next door or in another country.
The assumption that everything should "grow" needs challenging IMV

String quartets ?

Nothing to do with consuming more and more.

Who is talking about economic growth? Economic growth is not a zero-sum game, anyway.

It's about increasing the wealth of a nation, not measuring economic activity.

Why not talk about something else? Yes, string quartets.

[ahinton]

So the same old thing about consuming more and more and more then ?

Economic "growth" is always at the expense of someone, whether they are next door or in another country.
The assumption that everything should "grow" needs challenging IMV

That's been said often and will doubtless continue to be, but I'm of the view that there does indeed need to be continuous growth if ever the poor the world over are all to be lifted out of their poverty, not least because better healthcare and the provision of clean water and sanitation for all of them will require immense investment that will simply not be possible without vast capital growth. As I've just suggested above, however, there's no way that taxation régimes will help to make this happen because it's dependent upon that growth and the certainty that the wealthy will not abuse their wealth; this is a matter of education more than it's one of taxation. OK, call it pie in the sky - and you might well be right to do so - but I don't see an obvious alternative...

[ahinton]

Nothing to do with consuming more and more.

This is where I disagree with you. The number of people below what anyone in the Western world would agree is the poverty line exceeds that of the total population of China; lifting them all out of their poverty will inevitably involve consuming more - and by that I do not mean expensive supercars, private jets and the rest but those things that are the basics of life. Many millions of people do not have reliable supplies of water and food to consume or energy to use and these are all things that will be consumed in vastly greater quantities as part of the successful addressing of that overarching poverty.

why not talk about something else? Yes, string quartets.

Well, some might argue that there's even room for growth there! On the thread devoted to talking about them, mention has unsurprisingly been made of the wonders of Mozart's string quintets compared to most of his quartets...

[Beef Oven!]

This is where I disagree with you. The number of people below what anyone in the Western world would agree is the poverty line exceeds that of the total population of China; lifting them all out of their poverty will inevitably involve consuming more - and by that I do not mean expensive supercars, private jets and the rest but those things that are the basics of life. Many millions of people do not have reliable supplies of water and food to consume or energy to use and these are all things that will be consumed in vastly greater quantities as part of the successful addressing of that overarching poverty.

'Consuming more and more' is what MrGG said. Consumption per se, is not problematic.

The Soviet Union was very good at increasing economic growth, but failed to create wealth and lift its population's living standards.

Well, some might argue that there's even room for growth there! On the thread devoted to talking about them, mention has unsurprisingly been made of the wonders of Mozart's string quintets compared to most of his quartets...

'Consuming more and more' is what MrGG said. Consumption per se, is not problematic.

The Soviet Union was very good at increasing economic growth, but failed to create wealth and lift its population's living standards.