Leftist economic ideas are based on the worst human emotions, the UK edition

[Ideologue]

Like Gups said, linking these one to one is a Populist hat-trick, but taxing Russian plutocrats with 16th Century Elizabethan mansions to pay for the healthcare of poor second-generation Jamaican Brits doesn't seem like completely terrible policy or an injustice.

Mosley 2014.

[Ideologue]

P.S. I'm kidding.

[Warspite]

In Canada local governments cannot levy income taxes - and it would be a bit tricky to do so on the rich who would just declare their residency to be outside that jurisdiction.  Property values are in part a function of the infrastructure built to accommodate that property.  The argument that the property owner shouldn't pay for that benefit isnt very persuasive to me.

I think it is correct that property owners and residents should pay for the local services they consume and the infrastructure that benefits them.

But I'm just not sure it's appropriate to levy any tax unrelated to the ability to pay.

[crazy canuck]

But I'm just not sure it's appropriate to levy any tax unrelated to the ability to pay.

Agreed but Tamas is making the opposite argument.

Btw to address your concern, under our system, and probably others, low income property owners (normally retired folks on fixed incomes) can apply for property tax exemptions or rebates.

[MadImmortalMan]

Agreed but Tamas is making the opposite argument.

Btw to address your concern, under our system, and probably others, low income property owners (normally retired folks on fixed incomes) can apply for property tax exemptions or rebates.

Wouldn't it be easier just to have a complete exemption for all property valued lower than X amount?

You'd still have to do something for farmers, but that would catch most poor people and require less work than shuffling an exemption for each one of them.

[crazy canuck]

Agreed but Tamas is making the opposite argument.

Btw to address your concern, under our system, and probably others, low income property owners (normally retired folks on fixed incomes) can apply for property tax exemptions or rebates.

Wouldn't it be easier just to have a complete exemption for all property valued lower than X amount?

You'd still have to do something for farmers, but that would catch most poor people and require less work than shuffling an exemption for each one of them.

I dont think so.  The ability to pay isnt dependant on the value of the property.  For example a lot of retired people on fixed incomes are living in properties they bought decades ago when property prices were significantly lower.  They could not afford to pay the taxes on their properties and their properties would definitely not be below the kind of cut off you are talking about.

Also, farmers here do have a special tax status.

[Martinus]

A sensible solution would be to reduce the property tax for the first home (provided that if someone claims residence in Monaco, for example, that's where their first home is so they get no reduction for any home in the UK) and have the tax rise significantly for each subsequent home. There could also be some sort of size limit to qualify for the first home exemption (say, 200 square metres), above which you pay the full amount. That way you exempt old ladies still living in their Chelsea flats, but catch the rich (even if they find a way to show a low income by some trick).

[Tamas]

A sensible solution would be to reduce the property tax for the first home (provided that if someone claims residence in Monaco, for example, that's where their first home is so they get no reduction for any home in the UK) and have the tax rise significantly for each subsequent home. There could also be some sort of size limit to qualify for the first home exemption (say, 200 square metres), above which you pay the full amount. That way you exempt old ladies still living in their Chelsea flats, but catch the rich (even if they find a way to show a low income by some trick).

Yes catch the rich! It's not like they are supposed to have the same rights as others.

[The Brain]

We need to spin the tax-and-welfare merry-go-round ever faster I think.

[Sheilbh]

I think it is correct that property owners and residents should pay for the local services they consume and the infrastructure that benefits them.

That's why I like the idea of a land value tax where the tax is assessed on the plot of land not the building or any improvements made by the owners. The value of a piece of land is almost nothing to do with the property owner, but due to the society around them (see the increase in property prices near Crossrail stations to be).

And a lot of the increase in prices, especially in London, is in effect a type of freeloading.

Yes catch the rich! It's not like they are supposed to have the same rights as others.

What right is at issue here?

A sensible solution would be to reduce the property tax for the first home (provided that if someone claims residence in Monaco, for example, that's where their first home is so they get no reduction for any home in the UK) and have the tax rise significantly for each subsequent home. There could also be some sort of size limit to qualify for the first home exemption (say, 200 square metres), above which you pay the full amount. That way you exempt old ladies still living in their Chelsea flats, but catch the rich (even if they find a way to show a low income by some trick).

Yep. Or exempt an owner-occupied property. Personally I'd like a prohibitive rate on the houses Gups mentioned which have been bought by oligarchs and sheikhs but are totally empty and not even rented.

[Tamas]

The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.

[Syt]

The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.

Except that this would be unfair to lower income brackets who have to use a much larger percentage of their income for life necessities.

[DGuller]

The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.

Yes, we should all be like Eastern Europe.  All successful people want to live there for added encouragement.

[DGuller]

The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.

Except that this would be unfair to lower income brackets who have to use a much larger percentage of their income for life necessities.

Well, they should work harder so that they wouldn't be lower income people.

[Josquius]

The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.

Everyone does pay the same percentage of taxes. If a poor person suddenly starts earning over 100,000 then he too would be in a different tax band for that part of his earnings.

Plus the rich can only be rich because there is a base of poor people.