> [T]he switch leaves most households better off. In fact, the average household in every income decile from the poorest up to the eighth comes out ahead; only the top two deciles pay more. Poverty edges down.
Priors.
LaMesaPorFavore on
I had no idea the UKs property taxes were so awfully setup. But would this harm those large country estates that Britain is trying to preserve? Also the age old question: how would this effect farmers?
OptimusLinvoyPrimus on
This seems like such an open goal for any government to introduce. Revenue-neutral, highly visible, reduces taxes for 80% of people (albeit very little change for some). I can’t understand why Labour didn’t think about this type of thing while in opposition and start work on it two years ago.
The scenario given for a 1% LVT is very interesting too. It would leave 61% of households with a higher net income, increase poverty by 0.22pc, and increase inequality by 0.93pc on the Gini. However, it would raise an additional £17 billion for local councils, which are almost universally broke. So while it would be a much harder sell politically, and it does have more trade offs, the additional money raised could go toward repairing potholes, investing in schools, collecting bins, and all the other very visible and day-to-day impactful stuff that people are unhappy about. Or, more realistically, it could all be immediately swallowed by social care for our aging population (but that money has to come from somewhere).
I genuinely think it would be the kind of transformative action that the country is crying out for. It wouldn’t fix every problem, but it would be a big noticeable change that I think would go down well with voters as a sign of trying to fix things. The problem is that it’s also the type of change that needs time both to implement and then to bear fruit, and the government are now already nearly halfway through their term.
4 Comments
Submission statement:
This article models a revenue nuetral shift from council tax to land value tax in the uk
https://preview.redd.it/bl9m2q479g5h1.jpeg?width=1272&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5b29265dd2a5e50e7de2ed6ecaa200265fa92e6
> [T]he switch leaves most households better off. In fact, the average household in every income decile from the poorest up to the eighth comes out ahead; only the top two deciles pay more. Poverty edges down.
Priors.
I had no idea the UKs property taxes were so awfully setup. But would this harm those large country estates that Britain is trying to preserve? Also the age old question: how would this effect farmers?
This seems like such an open goal for any government to introduce. Revenue-neutral, highly visible, reduces taxes for 80% of people (albeit very little change for some). I can’t understand why Labour didn’t think about this type of thing while in opposition and start work on it two years ago.
The scenario given for a 1% LVT is very interesting too. It would leave 61% of households with a higher net income, increase poverty by 0.22pc, and increase inequality by 0.93pc on the Gini. However, it would raise an additional £17 billion for local councils, which are almost universally broke. So while it would be a much harder sell politically, and it does have more trade offs, the additional money raised could go toward repairing potholes, investing in schools, collecting bins, and all the other very visible and day-to-day impactful stuff that people are unhappy about. Or, more realistically, it could all be immediately swallowed by social care for our aging population (but that money has to come from somewhere).
I genuinely think it would be the kind of transformative action that the country is crying out for. It wouldn’t fix every problem, but it would be a big noticeable change that I think would go down well with voters as a sign of trying to fix things. The problem is that it’s also the type of change that needs time both to implement and then to bear fruit, and the government are now already nearly halfway through their term.