All good Tories should support a mansion tax

[Manlinose]

There is a column in the times today - not sure i can link to it as i think you need a subscription, so the attached may not work

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3691094.ece

 

but it is written by a chap called Tim Montgomerie, who is a conservative party activist and editor of conservativehome website

 

the gist of the article is that, when the economy is growing and most of us are becoming better off, we tolerate the widening gap between the richest and poorest in society

 

but when things aren't so good for the majority, "income, wealth and property inequalities that were palatable when everyone was moving forward have become harder to swallow."

 

He goes on to say that today's parents are probably the first generation to worry that their children will be poorer than themselves, but that the pay of top executives grows at a rate unrelated to the performance of the companies they manage and the luxury goods market continues to boom - not least of which is the London property market

 

"The value of properties in London’s ten top boroughs now equals the entire property stocks of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The gap between London and the rest of Britain, and between those with property and those without, hasn’t narrowed during the crash. Since 2007 house prices in the capital have risen by a robust 15 per cent. Over that same period properties in the most desirable boroughs, such as Westminster and Kensington, have increased by up to half."

 

He argues that those who oppose the mansion tax aren't defending the free market, they are defending "people who have benefited from one of the world’s most rigged markets." and that a pro-capitalist party should be supporting taxes which are "proportionate, administratively straightforward and not economically counterproductive"

 

He goes on to say that such a policy should be acceptable as part of a greater restructuring of tax policy "It will respond to the crisis of capitalism; it won’t hide away from it. It will ally itself to the rising class; not to the vested interests. To those earning income; not to those sitting on unearned wealth."

 

I admit i have selectively edited the article, partly to keep it fairly short, but hopefully i haven't distorted the meaning too much

 

it is, to my mind, a re-stating of old fashioned conservative values and, presented properly would surely be a vote winner - but it could just as easily have been written by Tony Blair's speech writer

 

personally, i have no idea how much it would cost to administer such a tax compared to how much may be raised. i've read the media articles which seem to differ depending on whether they are for or against such a policy

 

as it doesn't affect me personally, i'm ambivalent towards it, but i do believe that the "rich" should pay more in a way that isn't too much of a disincentive, and this seems an appropriate way

 

what am i missing?

[Supertramp]

There is a column in the times today - not sure i can link to it as i think you need a subscription, so the attached may not work

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3691094.ece

 

but it is written by a chap called Tim Montgomerie, who is a conservative party activist and editor of conservativehome website

 

the gist of the article is that, when the economy is growing and most of us are becoming better off, we tolerate the widening gap between the richest and poorest in society

 

but when things aren't so good for the majority, "income, wealth and property inequalities that were palatable when everyone was moving forward have become harder to swallow."

 

He goes on to say that today's parents are probably the first generation to worry that their children will be poorer than themselves, but that the pay of top executives grows at a rate unrelated to the performance of the companies they manage and the luxury goods market continues to boom - not least of which is the London property market

 

"The value of properties in London’s ten top boroughs now equals the entire property stocks of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The gap between London and the rest of Britain, and between those with property and those without, hasn’t narrowed during the crash. Since 2007 house prices in the capital have risen by a robust 15 per cent. Over that same period properties in the most desirable boroughs, such as Westminster and Kensington, have increased by up to half."

 

He argues that those who oppose the mansion tax aren't defending the free market, they are defending "people who have benefited from one of the world’s most rigged markets." and that a pro-capitalist party should be supporting taxes which are "proportionate, administratively straightforward and not economically counterproductive"

 

He goes on to say that such a policy should be acceptable as part of a greater restructuring of tax policy "It will respond to the crisis of capitalism; it won’t hide away from it. It will ally itself to the rising class; not to the vested interests. To those earning income; not to those sitting on unearned wealth."

 

I admit i have selectively edited the article, partly to keep it fairly short, but hopefully i haven't distorted the meaning too much

 

it is, to my mind, a re-stating of old fashioned conservative values and, presented properly would surely be a vote winner - but it could just as easily have been written by Tony Blair's speech writer

 

personally, i have no idea how much it would cost to administer such a tax compared to how much may be raised. i've read the media articles which seem to differ depending on whether they are for or against such a policy

 

as it doesn't affect me personally, i'm ambivalent towards it, but i do believe that the "rich" should pay more in a way that isn't too much of a disincentive, and this seems an appropriate way

 

what am i missing?

 

Lots, My dad bought his house in the early 70s for just under 50k, now worth over a million. He is retired, how can he afford tax on it? Dependent on where the 'mansion' level is set of course.

 

Who is going to value the houses every year? Why is this any different to Poll tax which was a great success of course.

 

The rich already pay way more.

 

See this

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8417205.stm

 

What would be good is to lower corporation tax but close all the loopholes.

[Mecky]

It won't happen, they are too bust trying to jump up and down on the heads of little people.

[Manlinose]

Lots, My dad bought his house in the early 70s for just under 50k, now worth over a million. He is retired, how can he afford tax on it? Dependent on where the 'mansion' level is set of course.

 

Who is going to value the houses every year? Why is this any different to Poll tax which was a great success of course.

 

The rich already pay way more.

 

See this

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8417205.stm

 

What would be good is to lower corporation tax but close all the loopholes.

 

i did put in a bit about encouraging smaller businesses with tax incentives but deleted it as it was a distraction from the main point about an influential conservative proposing a mansion tax

 

i appreciate the point about your dad's property circumstances and i'm sure lots of others fall in the same boat - obviously it depends on the level of tax applied and the value at which it starts, but it could, in such cases, for example, be deferred until the property is sold

 

the properties wouldn't necessarily need to be re-valued every year

 

the difference with the poll tax is that it only applies to higher value properties and, if deferred until the property is sold, isn't payable out of income

 

the link you attached appears to be from 2009, although i suspect the proportions haven't changed an awful lot, but the point i was making referred to a tax on property, not income

 

i agree there should be more incentives to generate wealth - especially at the lower end - which is what the article said, but the more i think about it, the more i am leaning towards it, although i do accept it isn't a panacea, it may only raise relatively small amounts, and it will need some safeguards for people like your dad

[Supertramp]

i did put in a bit about encouraging smaller businesses with tax incentives but deleted it as it was a distraction from the main point about an influential conservative proposing a mansion tax

 

i appreciate the point about your dad's property circumstances and i'm sure lots of others fall in the same boat - obviously it depends on the level of tax applied and the value at which it starts, but it could, in such cases, for example, be deferred until the property is sold

 

the properties wouldn't necessarily need to be re-valued every year

 

the difference with the poll tax is that it only applies to higher value properties and, if deferred until the property is sold, isn't payable out of income

 

the link you attached appears to be from 2009, although i suspect the proportions haven't changed an awful lot, but the point i was making referred to a tax on property, not income

 

i agree there should be more incentives to generate wealth - especially at the lower end - which is what the article said, but the more i think about it, the more i am leaning towards it, although i do accept it isn't a panacea, it may only raise relatively small amounts, and it will need some safeguards for people like your dad

 

OK, I am not a tory anyway, I am just a fan of less taxes, smaller government and less state intervention in my life.

[MrSmith]

What about these poor people that just bought a stately home with 25-acre grounds, stables, a clock tower and staff quarters. The £241,000 they just paid might have left them unable to pay more tax.

[truman]

What about these poor people that just bought a stately home with 25-acre grounds, stables, a clock tower and staff quarters. The £241,000 they just paid might have left them unable to pay more tax.

 

The issue with places like that is that the new owners will pay for a load of remedial work which will put the value up and then they'll be stung with the extra tax..why would anyone do it..? I can see lots of old buildings being lost if Ed's "new" tax comes in..

[Manlinose]

What about these poor people that just bought a stately home with 25-acre grounds, stables, a clock tower and staff quarters. The £241,000 they just paid might have left them unable to pay more tax.

 

nice property

 

it does raise a good question about how you value something

 

and, as truman says, the reward for preserving/improving a property is to be stung for more tax - maybe the cost of improvements could be tax deductible

 

there will always be issues arising, but most of them could be identified and addressed - isn't that what the parliamentary process is all about - so that by the time a bill becomes an act it has been thoroughly assessed and reviewed and as many issues and loopholes as possible have been ironed out

[ricgem2002]

Lots, My dad bought his house in the early 70s for just under 50k, now worth over a million. He is retired, how can he afford tax on it? Dependent on where the 'mansion' level is set of course.

 

Who is going to value the houses every year? Why is this any different to Poll tax which was a great success of course.

 

The rich already pay way more.

 

See this

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8417205.stm

 

What would be good is to lower corporation tax but close all the loopholes.

maybe he should downsize and sell it to someone who can afford to pay this tax then it wont be his problem.

[Vague_Boy]

All good Tories should support a mansion tax

 

Perhaps they should think for themselves instead?