Randomly Selected Article or Link

There was a way more important by-election today in Oxford for a seat on Oxford City Council vacated by our own Richard Huzzey who is going off to the "Land of the Free" and the alma mater of the simian one.

Congratulations therefore, to Councillor Mark Mills. I see he will be twenty tomorrow, Friday 13th. So happy birthday as well! Do we have any younger principal authority councillors at the moment?

Particularly pleasing was to see Labour, who put in a whole load of work to try to gain the one seat that would have handed them a Town Hall majority beaten into third, and most especially, the Tories' turncoat left unceremoniously back in fourth again in Oxford city! Well done all round everyone!

Except for the miserable bugger porter wanting to sort the students' mail in New College this morning - I've never been spoken to so rudely by a servant of either university, from Chancellors down to porters, as I got from him this morning!

UPDATE:  My glee is somewhat tempered this morning by the news that the City Council had got the votes wrong on the original notice on their web page and in fact the Tories came second and the Greens fourth.  Oh well, you have a Labour run council and that's what you can excpect...:-)

Surely there's some mistake here. Have a look at this snippet from MetCheck's short term forecast for today in OX3, Oxford. The earlier period from 10:00 to 13:00 has just passed so has dropped off the screen, but it was showing 1.8mm of rain in that period. It's been tipping buckets all morning. But the forecast seems to be saying that in the mid-evening this evening it will be 10.8mm (it was 11.7 earlier) in two hours as against 1.8mm in three hours this morning.

My flat is prone to a bit of rainwater flooding as the door is in a bit of a dip halfway down a hill peppered with springs and so the run off is huge. SO it will be interesting to see what this order of magnitude increase in the rain from this morning to this evening will be like!

Well, who'd have guessed it, the Liberal Democrats could now be in the position of being the only mainstream political party to go into the next election promising a lower tax burden and radical tax cutting measures for most. In today's speech Tory Shadow Chancellor George Osborne promises tax simplification: but refuses to promise tax cuts.

I wrote that a couple of days ago and and have been holding off writing more for 48 hours or so since I thought that with the Tax Commission meeting next Tuesday it would not be helpful, but today, says The Observer in "Lib Dems plan 2p cut in Income Tax" people are clearly briefing as if the Tax Commission report is done and dusted and only awaiting some formal endorsement from Conference so it seems open season.

There's not one mention in that article about the proposed Progressive Property Tax. So I assume that "the leadership" has decided either that it's best not mentioned or it's not going to appear in the final options. This was proposed as a first step towards shifting tax onto land values and off incomes. And I do hope we get to see the Tax Commission report before my membership renewal, because if there is no move in that direction it's so much easier not to renew than to have to write in and resign!

Here's what ALTER, of which I am secretary, says about the possibilities of a phasing in of Land Value Tax via a Progressive Property Tax:

In this article by a brand new member of ALTER, David Cooper points out that:-

&#8226; the richest 5% own 40% of real estate - &#163;1.2 trillion - but mainly pay <0.005% of it in council tax, but

&#8226; we make businesses pay 4% of the value of the property they occupy in rates and

&#8226; many poor wage-earning households pay >5% of their property value in CT

A 5% Progressive Property Tax (PPT) with &#163;0.5 million tax-free allowance per taxpayer (exceedingly generous!) could raise &#163;30 bn/yr -as much as 10% of income tax revenue plus all the income tax paid by people below National Minimum Wage.

How can that possibly be other than a massive vote-winner? We would not touch the middle-classes, who would gain on balance even taking into account the increase in Income Tax from Local Income Tax.

I can just see the campaign cry:

We would scrap Council Tax, replace it with a fairer local tax based on ability to pay - and by ensuring the wealthiest pay most of all we would also scrap Inheritance Tax, lift millions out of income tax and reduce the basic income tax rate for almost everyone.



When Party Conference passed the "Moving Ahead" mid-term manifesto in 1998 with the "Tax Shift" statement that has been quoted before here, the stated aim of the Shift was

taking millions of low earning income taxpayers out of paying income tax altogether.

If we merely set PPT at 1%, we will only be able to scrap IHT and have a pretty poor excuse for not taking those "millions of low earning taxpayers" out of income tax:

We thought it unfair to tax the richest 5% as much as the poorest 5% used to pay from their property wealth under Council Tax

And that, dear reader, is just the start. Once the precedent of taxing land values is established and becomes the main base for taxation - as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Milton Friedman et al tell us they would prefer, there are all sorts of savings to be made. So instead of just being able to look at managed government expenditure, such as the health service running costs, in which efficiencies could make a few billion difference, we start to make an impact on the two fifths of government spending - approaching &#163;200bn now, that is just moving money around the country.

Why should the government move money around the country if what is known as "tax competition" does that for us by producing tax incentives for people and businesses to recolonise those areas that have become economically depressed with low land values and therefore low taxes? Think of Hull as the St Hellier of the north, rather than the H*ll-hole of the north...:)

Land Value Tax, replacing Income Taxes, Corporation Taxes, Capital Taxes, transaction taxes and nearly every other economically distortionary tax that does not itself achieve some stated behavioural aim such as taxing tobacco to stop lung cancer or fuel to stop us choking ourselves, is the best opportunity since 1909 when Lloyd-George first tried it. This was the measure in the Peoples' Budget that led to the Lords rejecting it and the eventual re-election of the government and emasculation of the powers of the lords in the Parliament Act of 1911. Ask yourself why. Why on earth would the vested interests of the landed and powerful give up most of their birthright to rule to avoid a tax? Because it's progressive, that's why.

Income tax funding government expenditures, especially on infrastructure and supply side measures really involves a massive shift of money from me and the millions like me, to those who happen to own land in the right place to reap the benefits of that particular infrastructure. Land Value Tax ushers in an economy in which the government can in fact spend new money (not debt) into existence on the "full faith and credit" of the people of these islands, and simply recoup as much of that expenditure as is necessary to avoid economic instability from those whose asset wealth gains as a result of that expenditure.

To me, there are no half measures here. Any tax policy that makes a step in that direction must be rooted in the philosophy that taxes that put people off working and earning are economically destructive and should eventually disappear. If we don't use the opportunity of the Tax Commission to do start this process, we will all lose.

Technorati Tags: land value tax, lib dems, localism, taxation