September 21st, 2009

Vote LibDem to Knock £100,000 Off Your House Value

Henry GeorgeThis 1/2% tax on homes is basically updated Georgist economics.  Henry George was the most influential proponent of the land value tax, an idea that has floated around in liberal circles for two centuries. The problem is that implementing the tax would immediately discount the price of your home. Not the smartest thing to do in an era when many are struggling to stay out of negative equity.  A middle-class family home in London valued at £2,000,000 would lose £100,000 (1/2% x £1,000,000 x 20 multiple). Douglas McWilliams, chief executive of the Centre for Economics and Business Research, points out that it would hit the property market hard, because prices well below the £1 million level would be knocked as well:

Saleboards… home owners would face a double whammy – more tax and a cut in their wealth. The tax would add to Council Tax and Stamp Duty as yet another heavy tax on homeowners. It would be regionally unfair, since virtually the entire tax would be raised in London and the South East, and would be very unlikely to raise the £1 billion the Lib Dems expect – more like £600 million on  our calculations. Unfortunately the current crisis is not a time for clever-clever ideas for screwing additional tax out of the already hard pressed middle classes at a time when property prices have already fallen sharply, the top rate of tax has been raised and the tax deductibility of pensions has been largely removed.

“Vote LibDem for more negative equity” hardly seems like a winning slogan…

UPDATE : They seem pretty intent on shooting themselves in the foot with this extra tax on homeowners in the South East, it will be a gift to Tory candidates in LibDem seats.  It certainly won’t go down well in leafy Twickenham. Vince Cable has a majority below 10,000…


412 Comments

  1. 1
    Phil O'Pastree says:

    Purely academic. The Monster Raving Looney Party has more chance of forming a government.

    Like

    • 26
      jgm2 says:

      Not entirely academic. If Labour sniffs that there is a bit of ‘class war’ legs in such an idiot idea then you can be sure they’ll adopt it. And, like the 50% tax rate Cameron dare not oppose it otherwise it gives Labour the kind of headlines they love.

      ‘The Tories want to cut taxes for their rich friends’. See how it works.

      It doesn’t matter to the economic imbeciles of Labour and LibDems if such a plan totally fucks everybodies house price (and concomitent ‘feel good’ factor into the bargain). What matter is in mobilizing the imbecile class warriors whose happiness is not measured by their own personal happiness but by the unhappiness they can inflict on others.

      I have to say I saw this coming which is why I down-sized to a property half the value of the one we owned in 2006.

      This government or the next is going to be forced into some nasty choices by the idiocy of this Labour government. You do not want to have your head poking over the parapet financially because youare going to get fucked in the arse. Your pension aint safe, your money aint safe and your house aint safe.

      Thanks Gordon. Thanks Tony.

      You evil bastards.

      Like

      • 93
        Anonymous says:

        “A middle-class family home in London valued at £2,000,000″
        LOL! What planet ?

        May 2009
        Greater London
        Average house price
        £352,355

        House type : Average price
        Detached : £642,300
        Semi-detached : £351,599
        Terrace : £370,871
        Flat : £311,080

        Like

        • 140
          Talk is cheap says:

          First they came for the people with £1m homes, but I did not own one so said nothing.

          Then they came for the people with £1/2m homes, but I did not own one so said nothing.

          Then they came for the people with £100,000 homes, it was too late to complain about. And so a new Communist tax is born to pay for the feckless “poor” who survive on TAX FREE benefits.

          Like

        • 163
          Tax wealth not income says:

          Wealth tax is preferable to income tax because it takes from those who are already rich rather than those who are trying to become rich.

          A tax on the value of a home regardless of the mortgage is not the same as a wealth tax but it might be the only practical way of approximating to a wealth tax.

          Like

        • 198
          So long, off to Spain says:

          @155

          “Wealth tax is preferable to income tax because it takes from those who are already rich rather than those who are trying to become rich.”

          Erm. So if you’re trying to become rich, your tax is deferred until you’re successful. And then the government hammer you.

          Smart thinking. I can see how that would boost the tax take.

          Like

        • 227
          Osama the Nazarene says:

          Hey, anon precisely correct. Don’t think Guido has ever been to Twickenham. Full of terraced houses worth nowhere near £2m.

          I like the idea. Difficult tax to avoid unless you’re gonna start breaking your house up. We are so far up shit creek in debt and this has to be paid back somehow. Its a painless tax.

          So what if it brings down house values. Might give my kids a chance to get a foot onto the housing ladder. What a stupid idea, cooked up by financiers, to live off the ephemeral values in bricks and mortar. We should be producing stuff not living off financier’s candy floss.

          Still won’t make me vote Lib Dumb of course.

          Like

        • 321
          Twickenham Ted says:

          Fuck off Osama the Nazarene, there is one development of flats in Twickenham alone with about 100 flats each worth well in excess of a million.
          There are thousands of properties in that electorate worth over 1mill and a good number in excess of 2m.

          Like

        • 372
          Osama the Nazarene says:

          What’s up Ted, worried that your riverside pad is going down in value by a 100 grand. So fucking what!

          I say burst the house price bubble and let people get back to real work not the candy floss economy Braun has been promoting for the past 12 years while licking the arses of various city financiers.

          Like

        • 380
          Leaving on a jet plane says:

          @ 163

          “Wealth tax is preferable to income tax because …”

          Because everyone who likes this idea is not wealthy yet!

          Those who would rob Peter to pay Paul can always rely on the support of Paul.

          Don’t forget that to become “wealthy” … (whatever that means – I know people who think being able to buy a new TV without putting it on the credit card makes you wealthy) … you would already have paid 40% tax on your income, or even 50% come next year if you earn £150,000, and that does not include the NICs which are subtracted too.

          How many times would you like to tax the income of someone? Why stop at 2 times?

          Like

      • 173
        Siberian Tory says:

        Correct.

        This idea has been floating around on Labour Lost for sometime. The contributors are all intern and policy wonk types i.e. tomorrows career (spit) politicians

        Like

        • 293
          Anonymous says:

          @155. So – I was screwed when I was earning the money. And I’m going to be screwed again now I’ve got it. Thanks, buty no thanks.

          Like

        • 305
          Memory Man says:

          I am guessing this is a tax that MPs will consider an expense they should reclaim from Parliament.

          I suspect Guidos £2m home we a reference the house of Baroness Scotland in Chiswick (a bit pricier than Twickers)

          Like

        • 385
          TROMBONE says:

          cable is a Hunt

          i have paid ££s of tax in the process of getting my £M houses.

          let us cut some fooking services and go for a smaller cheaper government

          fuck you libdem wankers you are a bunch of Hunts

          Like

    • 41
      Anonymous says:

      Cable was even shot down by Eamonn Holmes on this today.

      Vince seems to think poor families are hard working and rich families are lazy.

      Like

      • 97
        derek says:

        Poor are poor because they don,t like work

        Like

        • 114
          English Viking says:

          Sometimes. Quite often poor people are poor because they do not receive a fair exchange for their labour, enriching their employers whilst being paid just enough to ensure survival and another weeks work.

          BTW Commas and apostrophes are not interchangeable.

          Like

        • 134
          Anonymous says:

          Your name is derek because you are an a-hole.

          Like

        • 152
          James says:

          The reasons why people are poor and why they are not vary but all too often politicians portray the poor as hard working and virtuous, and the rich as greedy and idle.

          Like

        • 386
          TROMBONE says:

          nonsense
          I was poor
          I did some graft
          (like 2 badly paid jobs to make 1 well paid)
          here I am now£M house.

          Like

      • 101
        Ken Lorp says:

        This is all ignoring or trying to cover up the real issue. The government is spending far too much money doing things it shouldn’t be doing. This is yet another wheeze to screw more money out of people rather than focusing on cutting back on spending.

        You simply can’t tax your way to prosperity.

        Like

      • 169
        Nick says:

        So I owe £900,000 on a £1,000,000 house how does that make me rich Vince?

        Like

        • 195
          Steve Expat says:

          It means that you’re earning well into the six figures (or the bank fucked up big time), in which case yes you are rich..

          Like

        • 196
          Rich Vince says:

          Makes you stupid, actually. Unless you are pretty damn well off you will never be able to pay off a mortgage that size unless you sell your house, and then where are you going to live?

          Like

    • 62
      Mr Angry from Carlisle says:

      I reckon Clegg is having problems with Cable who seems to believe his own publicity.

      Good Idea by the CBI to make tuition fees realistic, too many students and academics loafing around doing and teaching courses that are fuck all use to anyone. Uni is now the new Dole.

      Like

      • 77
        Throbber says:

        Fucking Cable is a dimwit.
        He deserves nothing more than to be chucked out at the next election.
        Who the fuck are the idiots in Twickenham voting for the tit?

        Like

      • 79
        jgm2 says:

        The new dole alright. But invisible to the unemployment stats and all at your own expense.

        One million extra imbeciles hidden from the dole doing useless degrees and paying for the privilege. The sort who in a previous life would have left school with two ‘O’ levels and got the same low-status call-centre job they’ll now end up doing with a degree. Gordon Brown must be laughing his socks off.

        Like

      • 149
        Realist in says:

        Yes this idea is moronic and must be from Cable who has lost all sight of reality since assuming the mantle of libguru – mad, mad, mad !!

        Like

      • 184
        Education educayshon edgeukayshone says:

        Increasing university fees is not an answer in itself, especially as those that propose the increase got themselves educated at taxpayers expense rather than their own / parents.

        What is particularly abhorrent is that those that study wanker subjects like English, Latin, Art, politics, history, “media studies” etc. etc. get a nice cheap university degree that gets them a nice high wage on leaving, but earns nothing for the UK economy. They are also the ones most likely to prop-up the student union bar because of the amount of free time they have, and money saved on course costs.

        On the flip side, those that studied mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, IT get a sky high tuition cost, have to buy books which cost an arm and leg (£100+ is not unheard of), and maybe buy their own kit for their course. At the end of the course they are mostly poorly paid jobs compared to how much work and money they had to put in to get the degree in the first place.

        The UK’s education system is warped for the benefit of the slacker subjects. This is why the UK is in the state it’s in.

        Like

        • 218
          Groucho says:

          I wouldn’t assume that the ‘wanker’ graduates get highly paid jobs. Some might manage this, but the vast majority will be flipping burgers 5 years from now.

          These kids have really been shafted by New Labour. They have been encouraged to go to university when they really weren’t capable (helped by the addition of Noddy courses by universities) and incur large debts into the bargain.

          Then the chickens come home to roost: big debt and no real job prospects.

          You need to be reasonably bright to graduate in subjects such as engineering and the sciences. Employers are well aware of this and will pick these disciplines over a Morris Dancing/Basketweaving combined honours every time.

          Like

        • 270
          Art Stu Dent says:

          If science students can read, you could simply be making the problem worse. Think twice before posting.

          Like

      • 242
        Osama the Nazarene says:

        Hey Mr Angry, if it cuts down the number of useless courses then great but I get the feeling that the academics would like to be on footballer’s wages and so are pushing for this.

        Like

    • 129
      Airey Belvoir says:

      Great quote:

      Professor Cook added: “The Liberal Democrats are actually very sweet. It’s a bit like watching a child put on a pair of daddy’s shoes, pick up his briefcase and clomp up and down the hallway pretending to be a ‘businessyman’.

      Like

      • 143
        TheCourtOfPublicOpinion says:

        Whereas with the party that cannot be named its toy soldier time, with little childish swastikas etc

        Like

    • 351
      Demetrius says:

      Garbage Guido, you London fancy pants with your lovely taxpayer subsidised properties are bound to squeal like pigs at the idea of a real and effective property tax to fund local spending, like they have in other countries. At least someone has mentioned the tax that you lot dare not name.

      Like

    • 357
      Great Granddad says:

      P.o’P The Monster Raving Looney Party has more chance of forming a government.”

      And here was me thinking that that is the government we already have, with the Master Loony leading it.

      Like

  2. 2
    going mental says:

    who cares about a load of wishy washy flip-flopping nitwits

    Like

    • 103
      Ivor Schwartzporsche says:

      The reason why we are broke is because the Regime bailed out the bankers with our income; now and in the future. Our income. The original reason why duty, excise and income tax was deployed was to fight wars-presumably to keep our sovereignty safe. Now we are being expected to pay tax on paying to fight the european warriors and domesticated traitors to invade our sovereignty, freedom and property – so its all a bit mad. Enough is enough because now we are expected to pay for a country that is ruined all but and protection money to the bankers.
      Vote for our sovereignty and freedom to property at the ballot box, next General Election.

      Like

      • 313
        Memory Man says:

        No Ivor S. we are broke because Gordon Brown was running a huge structural deficit partly disguised by an asset bubble and low interest rates.

        The bail-out was a one-off expenditure producing a step increase in indebtedness which we could manage – especially given the eventual sales of government stakes will pay back some proportion of the spend and could in theory even make a profit.

        It is the fact that we were over-spending even on the inflated boom-time tax-base, and now have a huge mismatch between public spending and tax receipts, year on year, that is causing the trouble. Increasing taxes will hurt the fragile economy and probably raise little revenue, so cutting expenditure is the only way to avoid a crisis.

        Like

  3. 3
    Dame of Scotchland says:

    London’s a shithole. Never mind anyone in South East who wasn’t a cυnt.

    Like

    • 211
      Mandlesonisalyingtwat says:

      ‘You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy”.

      Like

      • 261

        The SE of England is increasingly reminiscent of the Cantina Scene in Star Wars IV.

        Like

        • 317
          Memory Man says:

          I think you mean to say “I don’t like people who look funny”. Sad git.

          Though actually the Cantina had music, drink and a libertarian atmosphere. I’ll take that over you anyday.

          Like

        • 338
          Emigration, emigration, emigration says:

          Whatever that is. When I visit London I feel like a stranger in my own country. It’s not unknown for me to be the only white person in a tube carriage.

          Like

        • 345

          MM – are you suggesting people of a different racial origin “look funny”? They don’t to me, and as I have said elsewhere and here numerous times, amongst other many things generally considered libertarian I’d like to see totally free movement of people in and out of England/everywhere, but that doesn’t mean I want to dwell in the thick of any culture I don’t like. I would prefer to live amongst sikhs (not anywhere in the range of the infamous Jag Singh though, obviously) than among the likes of lilywhite Anglo Karen Matthews for example.

          Culture not colour is the Tuscan mantra when choosing his friends.

          Like

    • 230
      Anonymous says:

      Most of the English have long since left.

      Like

    • 262
      TOO FAR says:

      FFS the jocks really suffer from an inferiority complex.
      SAD LOT! I hope it pisses down all winter in dopyjockland

      Like

      • 271
        jgm2 says:

        If it did that then how would they know that summer had ended?

        Winter is for blizzards and driving sleet mate.

        Like

    • 412
      Dame of Scotchland says:

      sorry the noo everyone I was fecked out of wee heid on scag and bucky when I wrote that

      will write again when ive cashed ma giro

      Like

  4. 4
    Weygand says:

    Although a ridiculous idea, I understand that the the 0.5% tax would be on the amount over £1m and if so your example is wildly wrong

    Like

    • 17

      Weygand, have now corrected typo and am wildly accurate.

      Like

      • 21
        Papasmurf says:

        Guido… £2 million as middle class? getting unbelievable unless you are a middle class troughing MP? Or perhaps living the life of a successful blogger LOL!!!!

        Like

      • 24
        tat says:

        it is all very well knocking all form of taxation Guido but pray tell how you would otherwise lift the lowest paid workers in society out of paying income tax they can ill afford to pay.
        you invest because you want money for nothing, you want profit without manufacturing anything and so whenever fair taxation is discussed you dismiss it out of hand, a ridiculous position to take.
        oh and when did you start thinking that the middle class included millionaires?
        probably when you became one innit.
        to be considered middle class one would have to earn no more than around 150K, anything more than that is, financially speaking, upper class.
        stop robbing the poor Mister Fawkes and start paying your own way.

        Like

        • 29
          Any Colour but Brown says:

          tat, what about the person, who is now a pensioner and who inherited a house, perhaps 40 or 50 years ago. That house may now be valued t well over a million. Why should he have to pay tax on a valuation he has absolutely no control over? Don’t forget, that he may only be getting a state pension or a small private supplement (think of them having retired 15 -20 years ago).

          Like

        • 42
          tat says:

          if that person inherited a million pound property there is a high probability that they came from a wealthy family.
          also, what is the point of an elderly person living in such a large property?
          would it not be better if they lived in a size more appropriate to their age.
          and if they sell the property they would be able to afford a property more fitting their needs.
          and finally I think you fail to take into account how sneaky rich people can be: did you know for example that there are many rich old people claiming to be mentally ill and being detained under section 3 of the mental health act purely to claim a section 117 which entitles them to care for life so they do not have to sell their property to fund that care?
          you are worrying too much about rich people and not enough about the poor elderly who have worked all their lives and end up with nothing.
          that is not fair and they are more worthy than people living in properties worth a million pounds.
          that is obvious to anyone with a brain innit.

          Like

        • 65
          Pontius The Pilot says:

          Earning no more than 150K to be financial middle class?? Do what?
          So, you count the likes of GP’s, dentists, CEO’s of Councils as Financial Upper Class?

          How do you lift the lowest paid out of taxation?

          Simple. You bring back the 10p band, you cut benefits to the point where leaving school and breeding to 5 different fathers in a council flat in Peckham is not a career choice and to the point where you no longer have to try and get a job paying over 15K per year to be better off in employment than staying on benefits. The only ones robbing the poor are Labour.

          And sort out the fucking immigration problem as well.

          Like

        • 81
          Scenic says:

          “if that person inherited a million pound property there is a high probability that they came from a wealthy family.”

          Not really, it could have been worth much less 20 years ago, especially in certain parts of London

          “also, what is the point of an elderly person living in such a large property?
          would it not be better if they lived in a size more appropriate to their age.”

          What the fuck has it got to do with the State what house people choose to live in FFS

          Perhaps we could do away with private property altogether and dole out allocation to dwellings in Soviet style blocks of flats determined on what Mr. Brown evaluates is your worth to society, lesbian African Muslim HIV+ asylum seekers receiving the penthouse suites?

          Like

        • 107
          Ivor Schwartzporsche says:

          TaT you are a commie. End of.

          Like

        • 109
          tat says:

          pontious pilot,
          you confuse class with wealth.
          the modal wage in this country is 15k. therefore anyone on 10 times that wage is clearly a member of the upper class of earners. whether they are doctors has nothing to do with it.
          you are correct in saying that labour are the worst thieves of low earners wage packets.
          I suggest low earners(those on less than 15K should only pay a contribution in the form of national inusrance and should be exempt from income tax.

          scenic,
          well you are just an idiot. we live in a society made possible by tax contributions.
          if a person cannot afford to live in a property then they will have to move out.
          that is the rule that working class people have always lived under so why should it be any different for the wealthy or those with large properties?
          you seem to be arguing both against the state and also in favour of subsidies for people who cannot afford to live in grand houses.
          you are arguing against yourself not me you moron.

          Like

        • 139
          tat says:

          don’t be silly ivor.
          I am a capitalist and I believe it is necessary to implement a sustainable model of capitalism.
          ’tis you who is the anti capitalist, not me.
          honestly, you taffies have got a bloody cheek, you lot are the biggest load of subsidy junkie communists going.
          apart from the scottish ofcourse.

          Like

        • 171
          Phil O'Pastree says:

          titfer you confuse wealth with class. If you must pigeonhole someone according to how much capital they have then you should be referring to socio-economic groups, not “class”.

          Like

        • 282
          tat says:

          incorrect phil. a person who is working class will rarely be a capitalist because they have no capital, merely a living or minimum wage.
          that is the reason I use the term class.
          and the working class is far larger than any other class in the country.
          so watch yourself, eh phil.

          Like

        • 285
          Pontius The Pilot says:

          “also, what is the point of an elderly person living in such a large property?
          would it not be better if they lived in a size more appropriate to their age.”

          Right…. so you get to decide what kind of houses people live in as well now then TaT?

          “you are worrying too much about rich people and not enough about the poor elderly who have worked all their lives and end up with nothing.”

          Not all to do with housing TaT. Some failed to plan for their old age, some got ripped off and royally fucked by failed pension schemes thanks to the one eyed fucker in No10, some made dodgy investments… not all the elderly are poor. Perhaps the system would do well to provide the safety net to those it has ripped off instead of just allowing them to die first, proving they dont give a fuck.

          All this bollocks from Cable is, is just a re-hashed poll tax. Mans a flip flopping fuckwit.

          Like

        • 316
          Gordon Boomenbust says:

          Right…

          I think the confusions about class can cleared by use of the synonym “Lower”, in place of the word “Working.”

          Yes, that makes more sense. (Otherwise the implication is that the Middle- and Upper-Class do not work, and the Unemployed – by definition – cannot be working class.)

          Like

        • 322
          tat says:

          pontious pilot,
          tread carefully. you are beginning to propagate the victorian belief that rich people are rich because they deserve to be and poor people are poor because they have done bad things.
          dodgy ground pilot, very fucking dodgy ground indeed.
          I was struggling a bit but thanks to you I am back on top!
          top boy beats the enemy into submission yet again!

          Like

      • 87
        Weygand says:

        Except that after correcting the typo, it is hard to justify the statement that “prices well below the million mark would be knocked as well”. As a former property lawyer, I think it more likely it will be those just above the million mark that will take the hit and much imagination will then be employed to avoid the tax – as with Stamp Duty.
        Mind you, the whole thing is still bonkers on a political, practical and social level.

        Like

        • 204
          Steve Expat says:

          The problem with trying to excessively tax the rich is that they are either intelligent enough to work around the tax, or rich enough to employ an expert to do so on their behalf

          The 50% tax on high incomes will undoubtedly lead to a reduction in tax revenues due to avoidance measures and emigration, but the Tories dare not oppose it for political reasons. Hopefully they will ignore it during the campaign and then immediately scrap it when in power.

          Like

        • 231
          Susie says:

          Simples… you form a limited company and sell your £1m+ house to it for £3 (the market value)… you then ‘rent’ it from the ‘company’ and as you don’t own the house and the house is not a private dwelling but business premises = no tax.

          Like

        • 276
          Steve Expat says:

          My point entirely Susie.

          This is exactly the sort of thing that will happen, for another recent example look at the difference in rates of income tax compared to capital gains tax and how that led to people being “paid” in capital rather than income.

          Tax needs to be simple and unavoidable – VAT and petrol tax are two examples, as is income tax for those on PAYE.

          Most systems designed to try and extract tax from elsewhere (property tax, corporation taxes etc) are more complicated and therefore more open to avoidance, especially if the taxes are affecting only those of substantial means.

          Like

        • 409

          It is not the most bonkers tax ever suggested and I would be surprised if it had much impact on house values. As an example a house worth £1.25m would have an anuuual tax bill of £1,250. Most people living in a house worth that much are hardly going to downsize to avoid a tax of that amount. If you had a £2.5m house the bill would be £7,500 which is more noticeable.

          This whole tax idea seems to be like an extension to the council tax banding system which currently stands as every house valued at over £320,000 (April 1991 values) pays the same tax. With this system it would be an extension of that but with the charges getting very high at the top end.

          Based on the fact that 6,170 houses sold in 2007 for £1 million + there are probably no more than 100,000 properties worth that much (assuming there were less sales worth that much this year and these houses change hands less often than most, say every 20 years). If the average value was let me guess at £2 million so producing £5,000 per property the tax would raise £500 million not £2.5 billion. I may be way off the mark with some of my guesses but I would like to see the way the Liberals worked it out.

          Like

      • 117
        Inspector Foyle says:

        half a percent, 0.005% of 2 million is 10,000. not 100,000.

        Like

        • 125

          .005 x £2m – £1m threshold times 20 (multiplier assuming a mortgage rate of 5%) = £100,000. Go to back of class, put hat with big ‘D’ on it.

          Like

        • 146
          tat says:

          if you cannot afford to live in a big house then you cannot afford to live in a big house.
          you get the calculator out to help the rich but not the poor, innit.
          go to the back of the class and put your hat with the R on it.
          stop rimming millionaires Guido it is most vulgar.

          Like

        • 297
          Inspector Foyle (rt'd) says:

          am now wearing ‘D’ hat. forgot some people have mortgages..

          Like

        • 328
          tat says:

          stop rimming Guido inspector.
          be a man and take the dunce hat off FFS.
          do not crumble so easily it makes you look slutty.

          Like

        • 356
          Anonymous says:

          Oh boo hoo Guido, if you’ve got a house worth that much, tough luck.

          Like

    • 98
      Throbber says:

      Who would make the valuation on the houses?
      No scope for more corruption there then.

      Like

      • 130
        tat says:

        good point.

        Like

        • 331

          tat, you have a remarkable talent for making the most fatuous student ideas sound plausible and as such you have been rewarded with a gold star from Tuscany for this mini-thread. Move to the front of the class but do please stop using your sphincter as a wrist torniquet, boy.

          Like

        • 359
          tat says:

          yeah I get away with murder don’t I.

          Like

      • 137
        Mitch says:

        They want local councils to do it

        **gulp**

        Like

        • 179
          Phil O'Pastree says:

          who would then have to outsource the work to local estate agents because councils won’t have the resoruces.

          Like

        • 300
          Gone with the Wind says:

          The ‘district valuer’ valued our family home for inheritance tax purposes…..£300K more than we are likely to get for it on the open market. We have been told time and time again by estate agents that its only worth what people want to pay for it. So how will that work in Vince’s plans?
          And to that tat person; I am not well off. My parents worked hard to buy their house back in the 60s for £3000. Its now worth £900K. Its called market forces, investing and planning for the future. Property will also have to be used to provide pensions that this government have nicked from us.
          Some of these ‘poor’ people may have crap houses, but they have two new cars parked outside them. They spend their money which is fine but they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to bail them out when its all gone.

          Like

        • 335
          Susie says:

          Gone with the wind: I agree with every word.

          My parents did much the same. We never went away on holiday (unless it was staying with relatives) let alone 2 or 3 foreign holidays, once in my childhood as they were also paying for our education. We scrapped our 1956 Rover in 1968.

          Like

      • 265
        Throbber says:

        You can bet all the politicians houses would oddly be valued at £999,999 or less.
        Cheating cnuts.

        Like

      • 281
        UK Fred says:

        Surely it would be the VOA, which is part of HMRC. HMRC Officers have targets for tax collected.

        Like

  5. 5
    Moley says:

    The Lib Dems are having an identity crisis.

    “Not Labour” is the most fundamental point for any party to get across in the next election.

    To quote the point made in local Lib Dem election literature;

    The Conservatives are the only party that can beat labour in the General election. (Cue bar chart)
    A Lib Dem vote is a wasted vote and runs the risk that Labour will get in again.

    Clegg is now distancing himself from the Conservatives; he will end up with nothing.

    Like

    • 11
      Papasmurf says:

      Clegg will end up with nothing………. good. All this looney idea will do is persuade middle class Lib voters to vote Conservative.

      Like

      • 32
        jgm2 says:

        The Liberals are idiots. They seem to want to pretend that they’re going to sweep past Labour and the Tories and assume power.

        What they should be doing is dropping their idiot policies (pro-EU) and highlighting their good points (opposition to Iraq war from start, dropping ID cards etc etc). And appealing to the disaffected Labour voters.

        The Liberals should concentrate on coming second. Attack the weak incumbents and come second. Bury Labour. Bury them a second time in 2014. Worry about coming first in 2019.

        Their tactics are so inept I can only conclude they dont want to be in government.

        Like

      • 57
        Susie says:

        No they’re not, they’re thinking of their Lib/Lab pact these LOSERS will form once Labour have dumped Gordon Brown.

        If there’s a whisper of this happening and a Conservative majority of less than 100 MPs next May, myself and Mr. Susie will be off to Canada.

        Like

        • 348
          Met office says:

          Be careful, Susie. Canada has proper winters.
          Try Lanzarote instead.

          Like

        • 405
          Susie says:

          But I LOVE proper winters. I hate the winters we have here — endless mud, never cold enough to wear winter gear, but never warm enough to not need it now and again.

          Like

  6. 6
    Cometh the hour,cometh the Guido writers says:

    Instead of writing all the stuff that will no doubt appear on this thread in the next 24 hours – why don’t you ALL wonder down to Downing Street and protest at the Scottish scum Brown – he may be meeting his friend the Libyan terrorist in New York this week and degrading this country even further,but why oh why don’t you all take some bloody ACTION for once?

    Words Words Words – now take

    ACTION!

    Like

    • 13
      MonkeyBot 5000 says:

      Given that I’m at work in Sheffield at the moment, wondering would probably get me closer to Downing street than wandering could.

      Like

    • 20
      Mitch says:

      What are your plans, then?

      Like

    • 38
      Any Colour but Brown says:

      Do you really believe that it would do any good? Downing Street is closed off – you can’t get in to bang on his door. Start a demo at the end of the street and you’ll have anti-terror goons down on you like a ton of bricks. Even if you stand there, quietly, Brown would sweep past in his limo and tell himself how fortunate he is to have so many followers, willing to come to London, to show their support.

      Like

      • 46
        Wizzle says:

        Not if I whip out the little fella, and piss on his car as he drives past.

        Like

      • 120
        shelling-out says:

        There is a law (I think) which says that demonstrations cannot take place within half a mile of the HoP or Downing Street.

        Gordon and his cronies don’t want to see all the riff-raff complaining if they happen to be entertaining foreign dignitaries, now, do they.

        Like

  7. 7
    Anonymous says:

    Mercifully, little cleggy and his merry men are an irrelevance. The EU and the greens (two disgusting complete control organisations) are the ones to worry home owners with their carbon tax bollocks, which is already being readied for private homes. Eg, jobsworth inspector visits and measures your homes’carbon footprint’ pass the sick bucket and then you get taxed according to how much you are harming mummy earth.

    Like

  8. 8
    half the story told says:

    More fucked up nonsence on property prices.

    Stamp duty already fucks the market as it is unfair, jumps from £2½k to £7½k for a 1p jump @ 250k.

    Like

  9. 9
    MonkeyBot 5000 says:

    A £1m house is “middle-class” now!?

    That pushes me back down to working class, so we’re going to have to reintroduce serf class for the guys on minimum wage.

    Like

    • 292
      UK Fred says:

      That low house price is to compensate for having to put up with neighbours like Clegover, Comrade Arthur and Fascist Dave Blunkett. You must know that the location determines the price of the house.

      Like

  10. 10
    older not wiser says:

    What a crap idea. I can see hoards of OAPs in the SE standing outside their houses bemoaning such a crass tool. If they want to hit wealth, tax the non-doms.

    This would radically distort the housing market to little benefit to society. Just another headline grab froma party of littered with double standards…. we support the NHS but send our kids private, we support free education, but think it’s all too cheap….

    Anything for 15 minutes of headlines hey?

    Like

    • 16
      Papasmurf says:

      Just because one has a property that on paper is worth £1 million does not mean the income of the person owning that property can withstand this tax. Wooly thinking just as we expect from these prats.

      Like

      • 36
        jgm2 says:

        Quite so. It is a poll tax. It fails to take account of folks ability to pay.

        It’s up-front death-duty for retirees.

        Like

        • 45
          Papasmurf says:

          The LibDem Poll tax………… that should bury it well and good. Clegg the natural inheritor to Thatcher Poll Tax… sounds good to me for a headline or two.

          Like

        • 223
          Procrustes says:

          This does open up a few possibilities though – negative equity,always a vote winner.

          Followed by a bank bailout caused by the state inspired property price crash -another sure fire winner.

          Increased public sector debt caused by said bail out.

          Did Valiant Vince have any input into this? If so,his economic genius rivals Brown’s.

          Like

      • 85
        barefootcontessa says:

        It all started with the POLL TAX.

        Like

        • 119
          Camp David says:

          What we really need is a DOLL TAX.

          Like

        • 135
          shelling-out says:

          The Poll Tax was actually a good idea in principle.

          We would have paid a set amount for each person who lived in our house, and that would be it.

          For very large families, it would have been more expensive – and these are the people who complained, hence, it was scrapped.

          My mother, aged 82, is a widow. Her council tax wasn’t halved when my father died, it was reduced by a third. How can that be fair?

          Like

        • 193
          Phil O'Pastree says:

          The local authority services are not entirely directly related to how many people occupy a dwelling. For example, the amount of police protection would be the same for a house whether one, two or three persons occupied it.

          Like

    • 145
      English Viking says:

      No more taxes. On anything. Ever. The amount of cash successive Governments have managed to hoover up over the years is utterly disgusting. They deliberately impoverish the masses to maintain control. If they cannot run the country on the hundreds of billions they already get every year, they are not fit for the job.

      Like

  11. 12
    Anonymous says:

    Another barmy idea from the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg comes across as an excited teenager wanting to be one of the big boys. Utterly delusional.

    Like

  12. 14
    Kingbingo says:

    We should move the burden of tax from work (which we want as much as possible) to land which is finite.

    However, people clam up the moment they stop to think about their own personal balance sheet, and about how wealthy they are on paper. Its pointless selfishness. Most people never move home but like knowing that if they sold their home (which they won’t) it will be worth a big number. But then so will whatever they buy to replace it.

    The only looser from a land based tax system which will solve a great deal of the cyclical problems our economy faces would be the boomer’s, who despite having done very well for themselves are dead against such a move also the biggest voting block.

    If you get get passed think about your own imaginary balance sheet and actually looked at the benefits of tax based on land you would start to see the advantages.

    Like

    • 72
      Susie says:

      Learn to spell ‘loser’, loser, before you propose a tax which will turn England’s green and pleasant into a concrete wasteland.

      I agree we should move the tax burden from work, but not to land, to consumption. The more you consume (greed) the more you pay.

      Like

      • 80
        Papasmurf says:

        What are you proposing Susie? VAT @ 20%?

        Like

        • 150
          English Viking says:

          Just 3 months to go.

          Like

        • 246
          Susie says:

          Absolutely for some things… for others, VAT @ 500%. Income tax abolished, tax on assets abolished (you’ve already paid it).

          Like

        • 248
          Papasmurf says:

          Ok I’ll go for it, what would you tax at 500%?

          Is this a banding thing? What bands for what goods?

          Like

        • 308
          Susie says:

          Anything that could be classed as ‘bling’.

          The cheap flights, the second homes, the patio heaters, the new car every 3 years. Things would return to the 50s when stuff was built to last and if they went wrong were fixed instead of thrown away, thus creating skilled employment in real jobs.

          Like

      • 142

        Susie the oaf,

        The purpose of production (work) IS consumption! You ARE taxing work when you tax “consumption”.

        A Single Land Value Tax, taxes the negative externality that results from land ownership, that is it’s basis. There is no taxable externality from work, as work is a positive sum game.

        Like

        • 324
          Susie says:

          Anticit1… the purpose of work is consumption?

          Only in a hunter gatherer society.

          Lets say I take more money to mill corn, so I can hire people to make a better windmill to mill more corn.

          You want to tax the windmill!

          Taxing capital assets simply means that people will either all become universally poor and dependent on state aid, or if there is an exemption for commercial properties, will simply transfer assets into businesses and lease them back.

          If you tax assets, where do you stop? Savings? The clothes you wear? Your fridge?

          Windows perhaps, or maybe the children you have…

          Taxing assets leads to a culture of spendthriftiness, and no savings… oh wait… that’s what’s ruined the banks to the point where the govt has had to tap all our assets to pay for it. Hmmm.

          Like

      • 352
        Modest proposal says:

        Huge taxes should be imposed on junk food, sugar, salt, saturated fats, tobacco.
        Benefit scroungers should be made to work. They can start on the verges in my village where the local intellectuals think it’s OK to chuck cans and fag packets, and, fergodssake, wine bottles.

        Like

        • 406
          Susie says:

          And all those teenage mums given 3 bedroom houses… I saw a programme on care homes the other night. Elderly people and their relatives paying £3k a month and the care homes still run at a loss.

          Reason is staffing costs. So the obvious solution is that the teenage mums work for their benefits by working in care homes.

          Like

    • 90
      Anonymous says:

      Did you go to school at all? Whether you did or didn’t there are such things as spellcheckers, the use of which would improve your posting to the point that it might be capable of being readable. Grammar, though, will require a little effort on your part.

      Like

      • 183
        Kingbingo says:

        Apologizes to the grammar Nazis. My dyslexia catching me up again. Of course there are spell checkers. For some reason I didn’t bother with one for some bashed out reply to some blog where most respondents only ever go for cheap insults.

        But what do I know, maybe you all have been looking at a land tax as a serious consideration rather than instantly dismissing it.

        Like

    • 336
      JMT says:

      So how does the paper value of my house put money in my current account?

      It does not, therefore it is simply a smash and grab tax raid based on spite, prejudice and malice.

      Instead of LVT, how about a “daft tax” levy. Every party that dreams up a new tax should pay £one million. Every MP who votes for it, pays a levy of one tenth of the value of his assets annually, and everyone who thinks it a great idea pays the levy for those who thinks it’s crap.

      Stupid? Course it is, but then so is LVT.

      Like

  13. 15
    The LibDems - How not to win in your target seats says:

    As a reporter on the BBC News said -“It may go down well in the Conference Hall at Bournemouth but down the road in nearby Romsey the LibDems have probably just handed the seat to the Conservatives !”

    Like

    • 19
      Papasmurf says:

      Yeah… more of the same then.

      Like

    • 34
      R.McGeddon says:

      I wonder what Vince Cable’s supporters in very leafy Twickenham think about this attack on what is probably their biggest asset, something which for they may worked very hard to pay the mortgage ?? Nice one Cleggy !!

      Like

    • 59
      bergen says:

      When I heard this story on the radio I thought it was suicidal.Doubt if it will cause many to vote Libdem but it will frighten pensioners away in their SE marginals.And we all know that pensioners always turn out to vote.

      Like

  14. 18
    Alan Douglas says:

    Ah, at last the lovely sound of geese, hissing ….

    Patience as a national characteristic is admirable, as long as there is a thus-far moment as well. Most other nations would have been (indeed some are) rioting in the streets by now.

    Alan Douglas

    Like

    • 370
      Ruth Kelly's plaything says:

      This surprises me, too. The only planned protest against our govt’s wars that I can discover is organised jointly by the Greens and some Muslim outfit, neither of which I would wish to associate with.

      Back to the topic – political parties’ programmes. Victory would be assured to any party that offered:-

      – a referendum on continued membership of the EU;
      – large reductions in the centralised nanny/surveillance state and hence the size of the public sector;
      – a quick exit from Iraq and Afghanistan;
      – a referendum on the reintroduction of corporal and capital punishment;
      – capture and instantaneous repatriation of illegals – those who will not admit to their country of origin to be placed and kept on Gruinard Island (no subsistence offered);
      – instantaneous repatriation of immigrants legitimately here but convicted of serious crime;
      – (for as long as we’re in the EU) an EU-wide programme of decision and settlement for would-be immigrants, harmonising benefits across all of Europe and thus removing the incentive to break into easy-going old England;
      – resolution of the West Lothian question;
      – removal of Scotland’s, Wales’s and N Ireland’s subsidies from England;
      – dismissal and fines for teachers whose charges leave school illiterate/innumerate;
      – return of all pupil-disciplinary decisions to head teachers;
      – introduction of workfare for the unemployed;
      – removal of free housing for single mothers under 25;
      – local election of chief constables and NHS hospital chiefs;
      – abandonment of ID cards and Trident;
      – replacing all wind-generators with tidal power;
      – a long, slow, painful death for Blair, Brown and Mandelson – tickets could be auctioned to aggrieved citizens who might wish to contribute a cut or a blow.

      That would do for the first year. We could get on to postal voting, MPs and the Lords and lots of other stuff later.

      Don’t mock – it (or something like it) is what the vast majority of the population would want.

      Like

  15. 22
    anon at the camel corps says:

    On Pravda BBC Toady programme this morning Nick VClegg was given such an easy ride it would have embarrassed the Soviet news agency in Brezhnevs day.

    I was eventually reaching for the phone to call the duty officer at Broadcasting House when I realised it would be a pointless waste of time.

    The cretin BBC woman interviewing him did not ask one pertinent of dfficult question – particularly regarding the devaluing of house prices with this latest liberal class war nonsense.

    Basing tax policy on envy & division is no way to build a civil libertarian society – the Lib Dems are pathetic, & the boy Clegg is an intellectual midget.

    Why on earth did they elect him as leader? At least the drunk Kennedy was entertaining even though is politics are entirely wrongheaded.

    Like

  16. 23
    Rebel Saint says:

    Who thinks the strategy meeting went something like this: “I know, let’s target millionaires … there aren’t many of them, nobody feels sorry for them, and they never vote for us anyway so it’s bound to be a vote winner. What can possibly go wrong?”

    Like

    • 28
      The LibDems - How not to win in your target seats says:

      The only problem of course is that the people who are likely to vote LibDem rather than Conservative particularly in the South and South East will not think that they are “millionaires” because they own a property worth £1 million through probably in a lot of cases purely because of market rises over the past decade.

      In addition to the South/South East in other areas e.g Solihull in the West Midlands- where the LibDems gained the seat from the Conservatives – and where property prices are amongst the highest in the region – methinks that Lorely Burt could soon be joining the ranks of the unemployed post June 2010 if Clegg goes ahead with this and actually puts it in their manifesto

      Like

  17. 25
    moneyfornothing says:

    So Guido .. your home is valued at more than a million .. so you put this in a negative light ? And since when did a middle class home become worth a milion ? If it has, I agree with the lib dems .. the middle class should have more affordable homes .. I am sure where the majority votes on this would be ..

    Like

    • 33

      Where did Guido say that? Look around London and Twickenham where Vince could lose his seat after this…

      Like

    • 42
      The LibDems - How not to win in your target seats says:

      You underestimate the determination of the “middle classes” aspirations and their desire to retain their property value and not to see it taxed It’s immaterial whether or not their home is worth £1 million now – they think long term. Property values are one of the “key determinants” in this grop coupled with their ability to pass their estate on to their children without punitive taxes. Tax fairness plays ok when asked as a group but when it comes to placing an “X” on the ballot paper believe me they will individually vote with their wallets Why do you think Cameron/Osborne’s Inheritance Tax Plan is so popular with that sector of the electorate and why he specifically targetted them and continues to do so ? They have the largest proportion of “floating voters” and decided the 1997;2001 & 2005 elections and will decide the 2010 one when called.

      The majority of LibDem constituencies are ones that they’ve won from the Conservatives and where the Conservatives are breathing down the neck of the sitting LibDem MP. If Clegg adopts this in the party election manifesto it will be a blood bath for his party in those areas

      Like

    • 55
      backwoodsman says:

      Surely the point to debate is how many quangos can be cut and how much local government red tape – the object should be to stop wasting our money, not think up ever more outrageous ways of stealing from us.

      Like

      • 82
        Steve Expat says:

        Well said – let’s look at the savings to be had first, then at how much tax need to be rasied to make up any further defecit

        Like

        • 100
          They're all at it says:

          Completely agree.

          As an example, I had the “pleasure” of reviewing several meeting minutes from my local council. I was astonished (and downright angry) to discover that there are regular meetings of about 24 people, where only 4 are the ones that do the work (or manage the workers). The remaining 20 were made up of union reps. Unison had 8 (!!) people at one particular meeting -outnumbering the “real workers” twice over. BTW – this meeting wasn’t on employment or anything like that – it was about ethnic minority reviews in the population.

          Cut all the waste from these union reps, allow the workers to decide the best course of action, and get the lazy union bastards back behind a desk doing their “real” job.

          Like

      • 159
        Anonymous says:

        The Guardian is the official newspaper of the Lib Dems and it is the only one which advertises public sector non jobs.
        The reason for that is that a huge proportion of the public sector, (e.g. education and BBC), vote Lib dem.

        The client state is Lib Dem just as much as it is Labour, if not more.

        Like

        • 187
          Steve Expat says:

          It should be Tory policy to advertise all job vacancies on departmental websites – would kill two birds with one stone in both saving money and killing the Grauniad.

          Like

  18. 27
    Tankboy says:

    Foreign investors are one of the main things which is currently offsetting the sustainability of our current debt level.

    As the pound drops they are now becoming less willing to invest in sterling based assets, one of which is property in the uk.

    Like

  19. 30
    David Cameron False Housing Benefit Claimant and Expense thief says:

    “I know, let’s go easy on millionaires … there aren’t many of them and we feel sorry for them, and they will only vote for us anyway so it’s bound to be a vote winner. What can possibly go wrong?”

    Like

  20. 31
    Man With a Very Hot Bladder says:

    “The 21-year-old son of former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has been charged with possession of cocaine.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8266295.stm

    He is son of one of the sanctimonious arse holes behind the smoking ban.

    Hoons. The lot.

    Like

    • 48
      Thats News says:

      Smoking ban equals possessing cocaine.

      Oh, OK.

      Like

    • 64
      bergen says:

      Bet the arresting officer will be put on point duty after dropping a clanger like that.

      Like

      • 70
        Papasmurf says:

        don’t think so boy Hewitt was charged immediately whilst the friend was bailed. Seems to me that shows that the Police were reacting to local concerns and that boy Hewitt received the full force of the law……. makes a change.

        Like

        • 105
          They're all at it says:

          It saves them from having to justify not investigating the thieving scum of the current set of ministers.

          Like

    • 91
      Sir William Waad says:

      We shouldn’t blame Ms Hewitt for her son’s choices. Frankly I couldn’t care what goes up his nose; he’s a grown man and it’s his own business.

      Like

      • 96
        Papasmurf says:

        Only we know from bitter experience that this new political elite are want to promote their own into positions of power and privilege. So it is worthy of noting that they fuck up and have had the thought that they are above the law and that it does not apply to them kicked out of them occasionally.

        Like

        • 185
          English Viking says:

          True. They also spout their sanctimonious, pc twaddle in every classroom they control (almost all). Parent power has been usurped by snot-nosed teachers with degrees from poly-technics and ‘Teaching Assistants’ with no qualifications at all, save that of having been unemployed for six months. They tell your children how many vegetables to each, and when. They ‘inform’ 10 year olds on the pleasures of homosexuality. They have an edict, law, rule, regulation or guideline for everybody and everything, because they know better than us. Blair’s son was arrested for public drunkenness, Jack Straw’s son was arrested for drug dealing, his brother is a sex-criminal. Now this dreadful woman is reaping a small amount of the rot that she has sown. They tell us how to live, but cannot raise their own families to obey the laws that they have passed.

          Like

        • 383
          Dack Blog says:

          Parent power usurped… what bullshit. There are too many kids wearing the trousers at home in my opinion. Oh, to hear a parent say ‘no’ without followin it with a ten minute justification.

          Like

      • 99
        Mitch says:

        No, it’s just fun to mock the smug bast*rds

        Like

      • 132
        AnonymousSource says:

        I agree – “Sir William” -I don’t like Hewitt she’s another of those condescending,patronising and smug know-it-all New Labourites but her son’s over 21 and an adult.If he chooses to sniff “shite” up his nose and ruin his fucking brains that his choice.You can’t particularly blame Hewitt. I’m sure there’s quite a few parents who’ve discovered their offspring get up to some pretty “questionable”(in our eyes) things when they’re out or at “uni” and I suspect if any of us are actually honest we got up to some things OUR parents would think were pretty dire when we were “younger” or at “Uni”. I know I did in the 60’s when I was young but than again we “fucked anything” that moved in those days and snorted “cow shit” and almost drank “lighter fluid” so what do I know ?

        Like

        • 197
          Afghanistan Banana Stand says:

          This is utterly shocking news…

          Hewitt actually HAS a son??
          She conceived??

          Ye gods.
          I mean how desperate must a man be to even consider shagging her?

          ..and as for her son.
          I think he deserves our sympathy.
          Imagine if Patricia Hewitt was your mother…

          Like

      • 236
        bandersnatch says:

        Couldn’t agree more, Sir Bill. He’s over 18 and she could hardly be expected to tie him to her apron strings. If he wants to damage his nasal septum, he does.

        Like

  21. 35
    Papasmurf says:

    It’s a private matter ho hum. I see The Sun report they live in a £1 million house !!!

    Like

  22. 36

    I was gong to say what on earth was Clegg thinking, then I realised he is leader of the Social Democrats draped in a thin Liberal veil.

    This Georgist idea is a classic LD paving stone earmarked for the motorway to hell.

    It is a wedge to end up taxing almost all homes. The numbers (2 mill, over 1mill) and clumsy cliff-face taxation is by the by. Once the precedent is set, all can be tinkered with to meet political expediency and fiscal gluttony.

    LVT may have many sincere followers , but the end result is communism with State as landlord.

    “from my cold dead hands!”

    Like

    • 50
      jgm2 says:

      But the precedent is already there. What is banded council tax if not property tax. And at an average of over 1000GBP/year on an average house price of 220K per year it’s more or less 0.5% already.

      They’re just proposing there is no upper limit. Hard to disagree with that when you’re taxing the poorest and average homeowners at 0.5% property value innit?

      The problem is not that they want to effectively abolish the maximum council tax but that council tax exists at all.

      Property taxes are evil.

      Like

  23. 39

    Wow Guido slags off Adam Smith (PBUH)

    Ground-rents, so far as they exceed the ordinary rent of land, are altogether owing to the good government of the sovereign, which, by protecting the industry either of the whole people, or of the inhabitants of some particular place, enables them to pay so much more than its real value for the ground which they build their houses upon… Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund, which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government.

    What actually is the public good in lower house affordability?

    Like

    • 67
      jgm2 says:

      We’ve done this one before ACO. It’s my stuff. It’s mine. Why should I have to be any more efficient than I feel like with my stuff or my person.

      Should I leave the keys in my car when I’m not using it so that others can run down to the shops or use it as a mini-cab to increase its ‘efficiency’?

      Should I insist your missus goes out of an evening to a lap-dancing club or down to the docks to increase her ‘efficiency’?

      There is plenty of land if we need affordable houses. It costs no more than five thousand quid an acre here in sunny West Sussex. The only constraint on affordable housing is restrictive planning laws designed to keep voters, councillors and MP’s homes at massively inflated values due to artificial planning restrictions.

      We could solve house affordability at a stroke without forcing anybody to be more efficient but the voters (and multiple home [and mortgage] owning MPs) wouldn’t like it. And, with the entire economy and any hope for recovery resting on folks ‘feel good’ factor which is tied up with the insanely over-priced value of their homes that aint going to happen any time soon.

      We’ll have to wait for massive interest rates and a proper house price crash before we can dismantle the restrictive planning laws. Less resistance then.

      Like

      • 381
        Ruth Kelly's plaything says:

        It’s difficult for one of libertarian instincts to support the Planning system, especially when it places me apparently in opposition to the distinguished jgm2. However, unlike the occasional lefty unwise enough to post here, I do try to put reason above political conviction.

        Leafy West Sussex is only the way it is because of the Town and Country Planning Act (1947). Otherwise it would be like that once-lovely but now vile bog of a county, Middlesex, built over pre-War by anyone and everyone able to lay hands on a piece of land. Having been brought up in the county of the Martlet, I know a little whereof I speak. Sussex didn’t get that treatment everywhere as it was not then so popular as Middx – but if you want a warning about what could have happened, look at Hastings, Peacehaven or the Shoreham/Portslade complex.

        Certainly, the Act is abused by grasping councils eager to extract tribute from businesses unwise enough to want to expand. As jgm2 writes, it is also largely responsible for much of the false market effect in housing. But if I have to choose between the Act and letting Sussex be concreted over, my vote is with the dirigistes. It hurts to say so, but I can do no other.

        Like

        • 384
          Dack Blog says:

          You’d hardly miss the Downs. Undulating tedium.

          Like

        • 387
          jgm2 says:

          Ruth Kelly’s plaything..

          Have you visited West Chiltington? Hundreds if not thousands of houses on 1/2 acre plots and bigger. All up leafy un-made little lanes. All shielded from each other by natural trees and shrubs. Used to live there.

          You could drive through and have no idea there was so many homes just off the main road. Beautiful desirable. You could fit millions of homes like that into the south of England and nobody would be any the wiser. Of course the locals wouldn’t like what it would do for their property values now they weren’t quite so exclusive.

          Like

  24. 44
    Thats News says:

    Purely academic. The Monster Raving Looney Party has more chance of forming a government

    Well, that’s a little unfair, as the Monster Raving Loony Party has put forward many ideas that found their way in to mainstream politics. Lowering the voting age to 18 was one of them.

    However, I don’t recall impovrishing much of the homeowning populace as being a MRL idea. That seems to be an entirely Lid Dem idea.

    Like

  25. 47
    There was an old lady .... says:

    I live in a million-pound shoe.

    Whatever happened to the ‘ability to pay’ clause in Lib Dem manifesto promises? Sorry but this has just cost them our votes. No-one left to vote for now.

    Like

    • 118
      Ivor Schwartzporsche says:

      Vote UKIP. Politics ain’t worth the breath until we can argue over UK sovereign gov’nance.

      Like

    • 360
      Man on the Clapham omnibus says:

      Vote for the Party That Must Not Be Named.
      They won’t get in but you’ll frighten a lot of people.

      Like

  26. 61
    Ratsniffer says:

    Limp, dripping wet, greasy, hand-wringing lib dumbs trying to tweak labour’s bumhole with some ideas which will get the marxists into a circle-jerk of a frig-fest…. clobber the middle classes! That way they can try to do a slimey power-share deal when labour is whupped at the next general election. They really have no shame, have they? And they will be punished hard for it at the ballot box, because people will understand that a vote for the lib dumbs is really a vote for labour.

    Like

  27. 63
    Cato Street Conspirator says:

    I hope nobody thinks most of of us are worried about a ‘middle class family’ living in a two million quid house. And while you’re at it, check their help isn’t an illegal.

    Like

  28. 66
    Grrr says:

    When will these f***ing idiots (libdems, labour and the tories!) stop thinking up more ways to take money off of people and start thinking about how the country can encourage, not penalise wealth creation?

    Like

    • 225
      Groucho says:

      Well said

      Like

    • 388
      Cato Street Conspirator says:

      When will these f***ing idiots realise that simply making money is not wealth creation. If I go down the bookies, put £10 on a horse at 10 to 1 and win I’ll be better off but I have not created wealth.

      Like

  29. 68
    Praguetory says:

    This is nothing like a land value tax. A land value tax would bring unused and underused land onto the market and be a moderate market-based solution to the housing shortage/crisis.

    This is just another property tax and therefore encourages less built property. Average dwelling sizes have been falling since the 2nd World War. This along with HIPs, council tax revaluations etc etc will reinforce that trend. Living like sardines is deeply damaging and one of the most negative aspects of the UK in the 21st century. LVT, restricted immigration and a bonfire of planning/building regs would solve it. This doesn’t.

    Like

    • 234
      bergen says:

      Correct in theory.In practice we had taxes based on profiting from development,such as Development Land Tax(which was a nightmare)and,before my time,Betterment Levy.Both had to be junked as they were discouraging development.Labour’s Community Land Act 1975(?) was the most Soviet act ever passed.

      Like

  30. 69
    Disco Ketamine says:

    In all the talk in the last week, I have not read one policy announcement to increase growth in small businesses sector, the lifeblood of the economy

    Like

    • 75
      Ratsniffer says:

      That’s because labour hates business – even small business – and the tories have lost touch with their roots. Small businesses are being strangled by red tape, over-regulation, and high taxation but the marxists would quite happily see them all vanish.

      Like

      • 88
        Sir William Waad says:

        Government hates small business but loves big business because it provides them with bribes and flattery.

        Like

      • 112
        Groucho says:

        The government claims to be helping small businesses (with tax payer’s money) in order to grab the headlines, but little if any of this cash actually makes it as far as the businesses themselves.

        Quango after quango filters, sorts and assesses claims from small businesses – then refuses to hand the money over. The money gets absorbed by layer upon layer of bureaucracy. Jobs are created in the quangos, but not in the productive sector.

        There is a smart new business park just south of Sunderland. The ONLY occupied office building on the entire site is used by Business and Enterprise North East. As a local businessman I have no idea what BENE does. Nobody I know in the business community knows what BENE does. But whatever it is they do, it looks pretty lucrative, judging by the number of nice cars in the packed car park.

        Like

    • 89
      Grrr says:

      Absolutely, where are the policies to encourage people to set up new businesses, employ more staff and increase tax revenue through organic growth? Certainly not higher income tax, higher CGT, higher NI, workplace parking charges and double tax on pensions for high earners (who may have not made any pension contributions for many years while building their businesses). Very few MPs understand this, thinking that money grows on trees and professional politicians are the root of our troubles, not part of the solution.

      Like

      • 95
        jgm2 says:

        You forgot to mention all the affirmative action shit which means if you hire a bloke you’re running the risk of some ethnic/woman claiming it’s descrimination ‘cos you didn’t hire them. And if you do hire them and find they’re shit you can’t fire ‘em without them claiming discrimination. And if your woman hire turns out to be competent she might still fuck off for years at a time and expect you to hold her job open and train a temp who might put you in the same fucking dilemma.

        Fuck that.

        Like

        • 215
          Mandlesonisalyingtwat says:

          Ah yes, equality… It’s what makes Britain great… Ask Baroness Scotland….

          Like

        • 220
          Disco Ketamine says:

          Statutory Maternity Leave is for 52 weeks. You may be entitled to receive Statutory Maternity Pay for up to 39 weeks of the leave.

          sooooooo…………. 3 kids for a woman working in a business with 3 employees = 3 years of total disruption for the business, then the woman still has the option to turna around and not return to work

          Like

  31. 73
    GC says:

    If the numbers add up (if it really could take 4 million low paid people out of tax all together) then it’s actually quite a good idea. If their objective is a personal allowance of 10,000 then this would also reduce income tax paid by all middle income people (including those with homes worth more than 1 million, some of whom might not mind then mind it so much). Has no chance of being implemented though.

    Like

  32. 74
    barefootcontessa says:

    Wish I owned a house worth over a million pounds. Have the Libdems taken leave of their senses?

    I WAS in favour of a hung parliament, but if that gives the Libdems the power to behave like political tarts I’m against it. Last week they flirted with newlabour the week before it was the tories. Next week who knows?!

    Kennedy stirs himself from a drunken stupor and puts the knife in (skew whiff) to David Cameron, ‘Well if you’re not going to be friends with Europe then I’m not going to be friends with you’.

    F off you pasty faced political turncoats, try to dress decent, and not like a back street prostitutes.

    Like

  33. 76
    Olly boy says:

    Another lefty idea exposed for what it is. Why do they assume that because you have a house worth £1m or more you’re ‘rich’ and can therefore afford to pay? What about elderly people on pensions who are struggling along but are living in a house worth £1m? On paper they may be millionaires but the reality is that they are just as hard up as everyone else.

    The Lib Dums are as bonkers as Brown….

    Like

    • 164

      Maybe they could sell their home for 1 Million, move somewhere much cheaper and live off the interest?

      Wow, that’s so radical!

      Like

      • 319
        Olly boy says:

        Why should they be forced to move? Especially if they’ve been living in the same house all their life. What if it’s market value is less than £1m?

        Moving house may not be a big deal to you but it is for many elderly people and I don’t see why people should be forced out of their home just because of some crap socialist idea that you’re rich if you own a £1m house.

        A bit like Gordon’t belief that you’re rich and live in a palace if you earn £150k+ a year.

        Stark raving bonkers!

        Like

        • 329
          tat says:

          poor people who rent have to move all the time.
          one rule for one group and another for the rest, eh?
          you sound like a new labour fascist olly.

          Like

        • 341

          They’re not forced to move, they’re forced to find the money to pay for the asset they are using.

          It’s just like renting a car.

          In effect you are renting the LAND off the crown, rahter than taking an what is an effective subsidy .

          Shifting taxes from working to rent-seeking and benefits from means-tested and fecklessness based to equal and citizenship based would solve rather a large number of the UKs major structural problems.

          Like

      • 361
        Destitute says:

        Not with interest rates at 0.5%.

        Like

  34. 78
    Ben says:

    Guido, poor show, you (rightly) berate Toynbee for claiming to be middle class when she has million pound+ houses, but using a £2,000,000 house for an example it is clearly twaddle to claim that as a middle class example.

    And as for that link about Twickenham, there are 4 hourse > £1,000,000!

    Like

  35. 86
    Sir William Waad says:

    A fall in house prices is good, because it makes the price of an essential commodity cheaper.

    A rise in taxes is bad, because we have tried to make ourselves happier by increasing taxes to wartime crisis levels and it doesn’t work.

    “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

    Like

    • 115
      jgm2 says:

      Yep. Cheaper houses are good for everybody except the ‘Baby Boomer’ generation ie the ones currently in power.

      Which is why so much effort went into keeping the house price boom on-track during the past decade and why interest rates have been slashed.

      When the ‘global crisis that strarted in America and has fuck all to do with me Gordon Brown’ kicked oof Brown’s first priority was to get lending back to the insane levels of April 2007. He actually said so.

      The whole past decade was nothing more than a massive property boom. All that borrowed money was made against insanely over-valued assets and the easiest way for any governement to appease over-stretched home-owners will be to destroy everybodies savings and pensions and inflate away the debt.

      That’s what QE (ie money-printing) is all about (or all part of). Inflate away all the debt. And anybody who tells you otherwise is an idiot or a liar.

      Like

  36. 102
    Steve Expat says:

    If Vince is happy with his own 10,000 majority in plum S-W London, then he’s happier than:

    Paul Berstow MP (LD, Sutton & Cheam, maj. 2800),
    Susan Cramer MP (LD, Richmond Park, maj. 3800),
    Tom Brake MP (LD, Carshalton & Wallington, maj. 1100)
    Ed Davey MP (LD, Kindston & Surbiton, maj. 9000)

    All within 10 miles of Twickenham, and all just as populated by the aspirational middle-classes that the LDs have just shown themselves as out to alienate

    Like

  37. 104
    Steve Expat says:

    Longer reply in the queue, but there are 4 other LD MPs with (in some cases much) smaller majorities – all within a few miles of Twickenham and equally full of middle classes…

    Like

    • 112
      Papasmurf says:

      Sutton & Cheam Paul Burstow Majority 2,846

      Carshalton & Wallington Tom Brake Majority 1,068

      Kingston & Surbiton Edward Davey Majority 8,966

      Hopefully that’s 3 to the Conservative majority.

      Like

    • 128
      R.McGeddon says:

      I bet Susan Kramer, LimpDim MP in very,very leafy Richmond-upon-Thames will be looking for a new job post the General Election…..

      To misquote another loser LimpDim leader,

      ” Go back to your constituencies and prepare for oblivion “.

      Like

  38. 106
    The Sleeper says:

    Another LibDem own goal methinks.

    I have not researched their proposals significantly so therefore use my own situation as a reference…this is Southern England btw.

    My family home,purchased 20 years ago for £150K.Nothing spectacular..4 beds for me,the wife and 2 kids…not outrageous for the circumstances,eh?

    Oh..and a bloody great mortgage (for the time).

    Now looking to move (downsize). The home is now worth about £700K..although 2 years ago it would have been touching £1million.

    Looking at homes available,I am amazed at how many are in excess of £1 million..and frankly,how mediocre many of these are.

    I do not consider that in this area a £1 million house is a mansion…expensive yes,but for a family with 3 or 4 kids not an excessive property.

    Therefore,why should these people be targeted? Are they irresponsible for having slightly more than the 2.4 kids?

    Is it wrong to want to better ones lives for yourself and your kids?

    Which leads me onto the LibDem Tax and Council Tax.

    How is it fair that an average family in,say, a 4 bed house has to pay more (Council Tax) than the same sized family in a 3 bed house?Do they use more services than their neighbours…rubbish,street lighting,policing,schooling etc etc?…NO.

    This whole concept of property taxation is social engineering..it has no provision for ability to pay other than a notional valuation of property which we all know has no relationship to purchase price, mostly several years previously.

    In many ways,The Poll Tax was much fairer.

    Like

    • 158
    • 162
      tat says:

      good one sleeper, you are a capitalist complaining that you don’t get any value for your money!
      very funny!
      but hey, that is tough shit innit. this is a capitalist country so stop moaning you communist.
      you would argue against regualtion no doubt but ’tis lack of regulation on the bankers and estate agents that causes the lack of value in the housing market.
      go back to sleep you dopey cripple.
      thankyou.

      Like

      • 175
        The Sleeper says:

        Where was I complaining tat?

        I merely told of values of homes in my area and the inherent unfairness of Council Tax.

        But,of course,to a foul mouthed person such as yourself,you cannot see beyond your own hatred.

        Case rested.

        Like

        • 286
          R.McGeddon says:

          @The Sleeper. You have made a cardinal error because you seem to fit into the category, ‘Middle England’. People in Middle England generally get on with their lives, pay all their taxes, eke out their living and try to be decent citizens.

          YOU and others who are labelled middle class tend not to vote Liebour and LimpDim and are therefore to be pummelled and punished through the Tax system. Middle England are, for some reason, meant to feel guilt at having paid as many debts as possible and not broken (m)any laws.

          Middle England is reviled by Liebour who want to squeeze money out of you until you join them in the ‘Client State’ and then consider voting Liebour.

          It’s the Bliar/Brown version of Communism.

          Like

        • 288
          tat says:

          not quite columbo.
          ‘fess up now sleeper, you are against bank regulation are you not?
          don’t run away scaredy cat!
          case re-opened.

          Like

        • 315
          The Sleeper says:

          Tat…you really are the most brainless fool aren’t you?

          Why would I be against Bank regulation?

          Do you know something about me that I don’t know myself?

          NO..I AM NOT AGAINST BANK REGULATION!!!!

          …Cretin.

          Like

        • 330
          tat says:

          good lad.

          Like

        • 332
          tat says:

          and do you think the banks should remain nationalised or be privatised.
          he will definitley run away this time!

          Like

        • 337
          The Sleeper says:

          I don’t believe in Nationalisation full stop.

          Governments are there to Govern..not to try to hopelessly manage commercial organisations.

          What Politician do you know that has ever had a successful business career?

          Even St Vince!

          Like

        • 362
          tat says:

          and I do not believe in santa claus but I still want load of christmas pressies.
          now look here sleeper, as a taxpayer you are a shareholder of several major high street banks.
          are you saying you want to have a fire sale to cash in those shareholdings rather than keep them and receive yearly dividends?
          because if that is what you are saying then ’tis patently you who is the cretin.
          innit.
          you got beat sleeper, just face it, you took a hell of a beating.

          Like

        • 377
          The Sleeper says:

          Nope..not a fire sale.

          When the time is right the Taxpayers stake should be sold off.

          If you still believe in Father Xmas,you will have been sucked into the lie that OUR stake in the Banks is good value.

          Naivety comes to mind.

          Next!

          Like

        • 400
          Foggy Albion says:

          With all this talk of Christmas, it’s nativity that comes to mind.

          Like

    • 363
      Doomsayer says:

      Yes, having more than two kids is a crime against humanity.
      The elephant in the room is overpopulation. It will result in famine, disease and war.

      Like

  39. 108
    Master Baiter says:

    This blog is infested with dimwits.

    When did inflation become a good thing you wibble mouthed pot belly boy?

    Like

    • 116
      Anonymous says:

      The Mugabe hyperinflation for the UK predicted months ago.
      It’s on it’s way.
      Any day now.
      Honest.

      Like

      • 122
        Steve Expat says:

        Inflation is good for the government, who would like their 800 billion quid of a defecit to be worth less in real terms, it will save them money when paying it back.

        It’s shit for the rest of us though, although it won’t quite reach Zimbabwe levels here. It’s worth noting that the Zim crisis only ended when the local currency was abandoned completely, when traders would only accept payment in SA Rand or US $

        Like

      • 136
        jgm2 says:

        Mugabe didn’t fuck up the Zimbabwe economy overnight. It wasn’t too bad in 1989. Still nine years after independece. I seem to remember there were about 4 Zim dollars to the pound (official rate) although the black market rate was about twice that.

        God knows what it is now. I know they knock about six zeros off the currency every year or so though.

        Like

    • 121
      jgm2 says:

      It’s not a good thing if you’re a prudent saver. But if you’re an incompetent Labour government looking to inflate away all your debts and also the debts of the folk you encouraged to borrow insane amounts of money through your reckless economic policy then inflation is what you will get.

      That’s what QE (printing money) is all about. It’s as clear a signal as ‘We’re going the inflation route’ as you could want.

      Like

    • 401
      Foggy Albion says:

      Ooooh!
      “wibble mouthed pot belly boy”
      Look out everyone, watch out for the rapier-like thrusts of Master Baiter’s wit.

      Like

  40. 110
    Bush tax cuts for the rich only please says:

    so tax cuts for four million low income families are bad. mmkay ?

    because an annual levy of .5 per cent on a property’s value above a threshold of £1m to pay for it is far worse. mmkay ?

    Like

  41. 123
    Master Baiter says:

    Of the 24,000 houses in Twickenham approximately 500 or 2% are valued at more than one million pounds, oooow! electoral calamity —– NOT!

    Like

  42. 124
    EUBanana says:

    Good economics, though bad politics.

    Hong Kong, the Libertarian Dream, implemented Georgist policies, you know… income and corporation tax were low (maybe even zero, cant remember) but colonial HK had a very high land tax.

    As for house prices, would the country be more or less wealthy and competitive if

    a) everybody has to get in hock to the tune of 50k to own a roof over their head
    b) everybody has to get in hock to the tune of 200k to own a roof over their head

    Like

  43. 127
    Anonymous says:

    There is no such thing as a middle class home valued at TWO MILLION POUNDS

    Not in London, not in Manhattan, not in Moscow, not in Paris, nor in LA, Shanghai, Tokyo, nor anywhere.

    Your post only shows how ridiculously out of touch you are.

    Housing has been overpriced in the US and UK for a long time (huge and growing % of income). This is what happens when your economy produces nothing tangible and shifts the wealth of the nation into real estate, insurance, and various dubious financial services.

    Like

    • 155
      Rip Van Winkle says:

      Spot on.

      When, oh when are people going to stop getting off on higher and higher house prices. And when oh when are people going to realise that the current massive, ridiculous, credit bubble values have caused this credit problem in the first place.

      Like

  44. 138
    The Countess of Scotch Land says:

    I wouldn’t live in that multi-culti, diverse shithole, London, if you paid me £40k/yr expenses. The inhabitants are either crims, on benefits or both.

    Like

    • 172
      shelling-out says:

      On a salary of £40k a year, you would just about break even in London.

      It costs a fortune to live there, which is why we moved out 22 years ago.

      Like

      • 264
        Richard says:

        You are in good company. Zero quality of life in London in vfm terms. It looks hideously Third World with overpriced Victorian and Edwardian crap houses. Thank the Deity for the Internet and the freedom it gave me to relocate to pastures new.

        Like

      • 365
        Hear me gloat says:

        And me. Moved out in 1979.

        Like

  45. 141
    shelling-out says:

    We’ve already paid a high amount of tax on our properties. It’s called Stamp Duty.

    Why should anyone be asked to pay again? It’s ludicrous.

    Like

    • 154

      And the annual Council tax – the anti English, wealth punishing tax.

      So Surrey pays the most and doesn’t even get the services all the socialist heartlands get.

      Like

      • 188
        shelling-out says:

        Our council tax is over £1500 a year and we live in a modest house in Suffolk. We have no local police station, no street lights through our village and, like everyone else, our rubbish gets collected once a fortnight. We wonder just what we are paying for.

        It’s getting far too expensive for us to live in Britain now I’ve been made redundant. Time to go to pastures new.

        Like

        • 206
          Mondeoman says:

          Your not the only one, where has all the money gone, where does it go day to day? It is the welfare system that needs to tackled, where is the focus on that subject. No, let’s go for the soft underbelly of the middle class, they won’t fight, they will open up their cheque books don’t you worry. Well time to say no, time to be bold and rebel against these bunch of crack heads. This is one of many stupid ideas. Many people here will be assest rich and cash poor, how would they find this sort of money year on year, cash, on top of the Council Tax. Tax us all to death, that would sort it out, it is time to fight back!

          Like

        • 216
          shelling-out says:

          Mondeoman. Couldn’t agree with you more.

          It’s us in the middle – the ordinary people, which keep everything going. We’re screwed every which way tax wise, and screwed if we default.

          If I thought demonstrating would actually get us anywhere, I’d be the first on the train to London. Unfortunately, it’s gone way past that now.

          Like

  46. 144
    Anonymous says:

    Lib Dems now just have to add a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and they will win the election by a landslide. It is so close for them but yet so far!

    Like

  47. 148

    If I was a Lib Dem I would be asking myself if we hadn’t let the alien into the space ship.

    Is political suicide the new Lib Dem strategy ?

    Oh well – all us Tories in the South East will be happy to oblige them ….

    Like

  48. 150
    TheCourtOfPublicOpinion says:

    Whats the point of the libdems pretending to form a policy when we all know what they really want is to hand everything to Brussels?

    Like

    • 186
      Ctesibius says:

      There is NO POINT to the Limp Dems at all.

      They are no more likely to form a government than my cat, and so their fantasies of what policies they would implement if in government are of no more value than my cat’s policies.

      Like

  49. 156
    genghiz the kahn says:

    If Brown introduced this scheme, it would hit large numbers of people, as the thresholds would probably not be adjusted or index linked over the course of 10 years, the currency would be also further debauched.

    It looks like a back of the envelope headline grabbing proposal with nice round numbers for the thickos in the media to pick up. Thankfully the Limp Dims will not be around long enough to hail anything bigger than a 14 seat minibus after the next election.

    Like

  50. 157
    Sir William Waad says:

    Any tax system that is based on notional, constantly varying ‘market values’ is unfair, capricious and very expensive to operate.

    Like

  51. 160
    TA Major says:

    Who is to say that the threshold will remain at £1m? How much more tax would be generated if it was dropped to £500K? I can see Gordon’s eyes lighting up with that idea.

    Like

    • 177
      shelling-out says:

      Yes. His eyes would light up.

      Bringing the amount down by half would include 75% of people living in London. If he did that, I can see people moving out in droves. Our son, for one.

      Like

    • 181
      Anonymous says:

      If you raise personal allowances with the proceeds from the http://www.landvaluetax.org then it is the fairest system of taxation possible. As MP’s have so ably demonstrated property speculators are not paying capital gains tax on second homes by flipping the primary residence.

      Like

      • 194
        shelling-out says:

        Most of us can’t afford a second home. It’s hard enough keeping the first one ticking over these days.

        Like

    • 278
      Anonymous says:

      Gordon’s eyes lighting up ? I always KNEW he wasn’t from this planet.

      Like

  52. 176
    Pot-bellied Oaf says:

    time for a new post. this is shit.

    Like

  53. 180
    Thunderbox says:

    Listening to these Lib Dem plonkers is like watching a snuff movie.

    Like

  54. 182
    Stu says:

    I like the Lib Dems they make me laugh.

    Like

  55. 199
    Taxfodder says:

    Nice one GF except you may be interested to know…

    The Adam Smith Institute has said an average worker would need to work 134 days to earn the money they hand over to the Government through income tax, National Insurance, VAT and other taxes.

    But it warned that once Government borrowing was factored in, people would have to work until June 25 (176 days) before all Government expenditure had been covered – the worst figure since 1984.

    So not only libdems robbing you blind eh!

    Like

  56. 201
    shelling-out says:

    Just thought. The Lib-Dems may want to start buying up second properties themselves. What better way to do it, than to reduce the price of the already existing homes. They’d then be able to afford them and could start flipping to their heart’s content.

    Like

  57. 205
    Balls Deep says:

    Youve got to wonder what goes through Sir Vince of Flipfloppery’s head – isnt he worried about his 10K majority?

    OT – Justice for Jaquie, Slopping out for Scotland.

    Like

  58. 208
    Peter Hitchens says:

    £5 tax for everytime a Libdem either gets fucked up the arse by a rent boy or fucks said rentboy up the arse?
    National debt paid offf in six months
    I am a fucking genius when it comes to economics

    Like

  59. 209
    ron Vibentrop says:

    Vince Nasal Whine Cable, ex communist and Labour councillor and now back stabbing Lib Dem, already presides over a Liberal constituency governed by the most useless and incompetent council with the highest local taxes in the country. When will the luvies at the BBC stop giving airtime to this utter Hunt whose grasp of matters fiscal are so minute and immature that one wonders if he went to the Mugabe School of Economics.

    Like

    • 344
      Anonymous says:

      Vince Cable has a bifurcated tail and a cloven hoof. This just goes to show that he is, in fact, the devil incarnate.

      Like

  60. 210
    The Sleeper says:

    Definitions of ‘tat’….

    “tastelessness by virtue of being cheap and vulgar”

    “worthless and shabby”

    ..any more?

    Like

    • 334
      tat says:

      definitions of sleeper:
      sleepy dozey tired old fucker.
      any more for any more?

      Like

      • 378
        The Sleeper says:

        You must try harder,Dear Boy..

        Not original or creative and even less humourous.

        D-

        Like

        • 392
          thick as thieves says:

          YOU DO NOT TELL TOP BOY WHAT TO DO YOU FUCKING C’UNT
          TOP BOY TELLS YOU WHAT TO DO I’M THE FUCKING DADDY!
          YOU FUCKING SCUM YOU ARE MY BITCH YOU SLEEPY FUCKER
          YOU WILL DANCE FOR TOP BOYS ENTERTAINMENT YOU SLAG
          DANCE FASTER DANCE FASTER BITCH!
          watch your fucking manners when you are talking to top boy.
          unless you want your brain bashed in ofcourse.
          good cripple.

          Like

        • 403
          Nazi Moderator says:

          Oi Oi

          What’s all this? Top boy wants his bottle?

          Like

  61. 212
    going mental says:

    200th

    Like

    • 367
      Arthur Kneegus says:

      Your grasp of numbers is nothing less than masterly.
      You are Vince Cable and I claim my £5 or a trip to Blackpool
      (second prize two trips).

      Like

  62. 213
    Obama is a twat says:

    After seeing Mincer Cable getting beaten up by Andrew Neil (finally a beeboid who doesn’t lick St Vince’s arse) and shown up to be a senile old fool who has no idea he has more chance of getting a blow job off Guido than being Chancellor.

    Like

  63. 214
    Anonymous says:

    Ah, ‘libertarian’ Guido, standing up for the vested interests and state backed oligopolies.

    I suppose you’d oppose a relaxation of planning laws because it might affect your property values.

    Fuck those who are screwed over by a government created housing bubble.

    Like

    • 219
      shelling-out says:

      I suppose you’d oppose a relaxation of planning laws because it might affect your property values.

      ……Have you ever been to America? The planning laws there are virtually non-existant – and it shows.

      I have no problem with anyone building, extending, or whatever. We’ve done it ourselves. But if you relax the planning laws too much, all sorts of mostrosities could be built – even where you live. Would you be so glib if a power station was constructed in your back yard, and you had no say at all?

      I look forward to hearing your reply.

      Like

  64. 217
    S.B.S. says:

    the lib dems can say what ever they want, but it matters not a jot as they will never be in power.
    the idea is so stupid, as they should be finding ways to decrease tax in every aspect of life.
    want to save money, stop paying teenagers money to get pregnant, they get pregnant they the father pay for the little shit, not us tax payers.

    Like

    • 222
      Peter Hitchens says:

      Too lenient
      Flog them and then hand them over to nuns for more flogging and laundry duties, the have the child adopted.
      I worked in Ireland ,it can work here.

      Like

  65. 221
    Anonymous says:

    Middle class family with a £2m house? Good point well made Guido.

    Like

  66. 224
    Peter Hitchens says:

    The Irish had the right Idea
    Hand the sluts over to the nuns, confiscate the child and make the bitches do hard manual labour to atone for their sins

    Like

  67. 226
    Lib Dums are avin a larf. says:

    What utter bollox from the Lib Dums.I lived in outer London a few years ago and our 3 bed detached was worth nearly half a million before Gorgon crashed the property market.Just because you have a million pounds house doesnt mean you are a millionaire and can cough up extra money so the great unwashed can have a new 52inch plasma each.

    Like

    • 232
      Anonymous says:

      Daily Mail man, I see. Well done. Now get down and go and lie quietly.

      Like

      • 235
        shelling-out says:

        There you go, generalising again.

        We don’t all have to be DM readers to feel strongly about the way in which the economy is going down the drain.

        BTW. Do you work?

        Like

        • 243
          Anonymous says:

          Precisely. A Daily Mail man to the core. Immediately reaching for a means of landing an insult. Yes, I do work. Now, surely your next question must be about my actual/alleged ethnic history? Try the old “no true Englishman would . . . ” etc (Trad. arr. Powell) attack, which, whether actual or implied, is so very popular here.

          Like

        • 244
          Hello Dolly says:

          Anonimong 222

          Just post under your own name Derek next time.I knew referring to the great unwashed would smoke you out.Lets face it there are not many people more unwashed than you.

          Like

        • 249
          shelling-out says:

          Anonymous. You should read your mails before you post them.

          I’ve never read such garbage.

          Like

        • 252
          jgm2 says:

          shelling-out

          I’ve never read such garbage.

          If you want to keep it that way then stay away from Polly Toynbee et all at The Guardian.

          Pure shit that aspires to be mere garbage.

          Like

        • 256
          shelling-out says:

          jgm2

          Polly Toynbee?

          Never read her articles, and I’m never likely to.

          Like

    • 241
      jgm2 says:

      was worth nearly half a million before Gorgon crashed the property market

      It was never worth 500,000 quid. That was a completely artificial valuation created by Gordon Brown pump-priming the Uk economy with 30bn quid in borrowing every year. Employing one million fuckwits on ludicrous salaries to compete for the available housing. Slashing interest rates to (then) all time lows. Neutering the oversight authorities so that the banks kept handing out money to self-cert imbeciles.

      And then basking in the glow of his ‘miracle economy’.

      The only people who cannot see this are idiots or liars.

      Like

      • 254
        Lib Dums are avin a larf. says:

        It may not be worth that now but it was when I got someone to pay me the best part of half a million for it.I took the money and moved out of the hellhole that is London.
        It may have been phoney money but its now my phoney money.

        Like

    • 255
      Procrustes says:

      Fear not

      Clegg was an MEP before being an MP,so he is no stranger to daft laws and does not understand real things.

      It’s the Lib Dems – it ain’t happening

      He’ already backtracking on the words ‘savage cuts’ because he has upset the party by using such nasty words. Although he might use them in the future if circumstances require..or not. Hopefully Vince will foresee the problem(after it has happened) so it will not be an issue.

      Should he have co-written ‘Courage ‘with Gordon?

      Guess what -he has not done a real job either before going into politics as an MEP.

      and of course Vince was in the Labour party for a while.

      How did we end up with politicians like these?

      Like

      • 266
        Anonymous says:

        Clegg was an MEP before being an MP,so he is no stranger to daft laws and does not understand real things.

        There are, no doubt, “daft laws” of various kinds. But your unsubstantiated assertion cannot go unremarked. What evidence do you have that Clegg “does not understand real things”?

        Like

  68. 228

    No knock on the door yet.See laws are only for the little people.

    Like

  69. 229
    Anonymous says:

    So what do we have here then? A bloke who used to work for the Sun leading a bunch of anti-semitic, xenophobic, semi-literate hoons. You fools will believe anything, it seems . . .

    Like

  70. 238
    Moley says:

    The Lib Dems are the official party of Pravda, Grainiad, education, and all the middle class client state.

    Will the Turkeys vote for Christmas?

    Like

  71. 247

    Why do the LibDems bother with all the expense of setting up shop in Bmth? I would’ve thought Speakers Corner in Hyde Park would be more than suitable.

    Like

  72. 259
    Disco Ketamine says:

    I don’t know the answer to this one but somehow the state needs to identify the small group of individuals who can get this country out of the shit financially.

    teachers, doctors, council operatives, politicians, bankers, werkers, wurkers, wearkers can support from the sidelines, shouting good advice, tending to the injured players but someone has to be on the pitch playing the game for real, generating jobs and foreign income

    If a business idea is not good enough to put your own money into or good enough to persuade and bank to invest then the state should not invest. They should leave money with the companies that are profitable. If it doesn’t fit your political sensibiities of race and gender then tough shit, we are in the shit and subsidised business will not get us out of the shit

    Like

    • 340
      Anonymous says:

      The naivete and trust of your post is astonishing. Are you not aware of the dreadful behaviour of banks in this country? And if so, then why do you assume that banks are a fit institution to decide whether a business idea is viable or not?

      Like

  73. 260
    Sir William Waad says:

    A Clegg is a type of horse-fly, isn’t it? Damn nuisance on our hill pastures.

    Like

  74. 263
    Anonymous says:

    Tony Blair may have to take on another global megabank consultancy to pay the Cable tax on his £1m-plus houses.

    Like

  75. 268
    genghiz the kahn says:

    Has anyone else noticed that at least one of the comments on Baroness Scotland have disappeared from Toenails’ blog because they have “infringed the moderation rules.”

    The first comment asked why Toenails was not covering the story. It was there about half an hour ago. All other comments had were being moderated, now the first comment has been axed.

    Is this par for the course?

    Like

  76. 279
    Oaten says:

    It started in my memoirs

    Like

  77. 283
    Anonymous says:

    “A middle-class family home in London valued at £2,000,000 would lose £100,000 (1/2% x £1,000,000 x 20 multiple).”

    What fucking bollox !! How on earth can anyone pretend that someone who has a £ 2,000,000 home is ‘middle-class’ ??? Do you fucking imbeciles not realise that ‘middle’ is synonymous with ‘centre’ ???

    How on earth can anyone who is in the top decile of asset value be considered to be in the centre of the wealth distribution ?? I’m not saying this is a good policy, but for fuck’s sake, don’t let us pretend that the people affected by this are the ‘middle class’.

    This twattery just queers your pitch for REAL middle-class tax hikes, like the 50% tax rate. Hyperbolic scaremongering like this just means that people won’t be able to see the wood for the trees of stealth tax increases as Guido ‘cries wolf’ far too many times for it to have any effect.

    Like

  78. 289
    Mitch says:

    The Baroness Scotland story is now right at the bottom of the BBC Politics page and is about to disappear.

    By contrast, the rubbishing of Osborne’s 3p tax-hike claim is riding high.

    Like

    • 296
      Troughy says:

      Sky were suggesting earlier that they thought there might be a bit of a reshuffle announcement at today’s lobby briefing. I think we may safely assume that Snotty has been as decisive as ever.

      Like

    • 298
      shelling-out says:

      Well – there’s a surprise.

      How long before they blame the Conservatives for Baroness Scotland’s “mistake”. I’m sure they’ll find an angle sooner or later.

      Like

      • 303
        jgm2 says:

        Of course. It will all be due to market deregulation begun by Margaret Thatcher. Or possibly the Americans. Or the bankers.

        For sure it will be somebody elses fault anyway.

        Like

    • 299
      jgm2 says:

      Not sure that’s a good tactic. The government was trying to tie ‘Mr 10%’ onto the Tories up until it emerged they had solid evidence that Labour too was going to be Mr10%.

      Osborne can do no wrong with this. The public will assume this is good information from Osborne and will, in time, be bourne out by a similar leak as before. Even if it’s pure bollocks and the story is allowed to die then the headline still remains in the voters miinds – Labour to increase tax by 3%.

      It’s Labour’s own tactics turned on themselves.

      This is where Labour’s history of perpetual lying comes back to haunt it. The voters will now believe anything the Tories tell ‘em – because they’ve been proved right in the teeth of Labour lies a couple of times now.

      Conversly the voters don’t believe a word Labour politicians come out with.

      Like

    • 301
      nell says:

      Don’t worry who reads the BBC news pages anyway? – I gave them up ages ago – I just got so fed up with their left wing bias.

      Like

    • 304
      BBC Editorial Policy Director says:

      Just because she’s muffing an illegal immigrant on expenses,doesn’t make it relevant to Osbornes fag packet calculations. Get with the programme.

      Like

    • 374
      Groucho says:

      I don’t waste my time with the BBC news. The bias is so bad its not even funny any more.

      Like

      • 376
        Groucho says:

        Ok, I took a look at the Beeb web site and this gem immediately caught my eye.

        The government isn’t planning a £2bn cut in the education budget. Oh no.

        The line is – ‘Labour could save teachers £2bn’

        And the illegal immigrant employing Attorney General is now the very bottom link in the ‘other news’ section of the Politics page. About to be erased completely.

        What an absolute disgrace.

        Like

  79. 295
    Bob says:

    So what about this poor woman and her poor family, who will pay their council tax?:

    £1.2m “Council House”

    Me I guess.

    Like

    • 307
      Mustapha Councilhouse says:

      How dare you say that you racist! Why shouldn’t English taxpayers be supporting anybody who wants to come here, even if it is at the expense of needy English folk – you swine!

      Like

  80. 302
    Brillo's technicolour syrup says:

    Brillo was looking scorched round the barnet today on the dp, he must have grabbed the bleach rather than the henna this morning – the old queen.

    Like

  81. 306
    shelling-out says:

    This sort of thing makes my blood boil. Toorpakai Saiedi was rocketed to the top of the list and given a free house for her and her 7 children, whilst people on the council waiting list will have to wait much longer.

    Like

  82. 309
    David Cameron's election strategist says:

    It just keeps getting better and better

    Like

  83. 312
    smilie in your stout says:

    There are several points here.

    1. Tactics. Yes, it’s stupid thing to propose and will certainly affect the Lib Dem vote in places like Richmond. Teh analysis is correct about the knock on effects (although one man’s cheaper house=less wealth is another man’s cheaper house= more wealth – depends who’s selling and who’s buying).

    2. Principles. Property tax is in fact a very good tax. It has a good relationship to wealth – the wealthier you are the bigger your house tends to be. No one can dodge the tax. Foreigners living in this country and benefiting from it have to pay the tax as well as citizens of the UK. It encourages sensible use of land in a crowded island. It may restrain a market always in danger of overheating.

    3. Pragmatic. It would be much better all round if we had a flat rate income tax with no allowances of say 20% and then raised the lost revenue through a property tax. However, one cannot do that overnight. People have made rational decisions about where to live based on the current system. I think therefore for a period of perhaps 10 years or more people would have to be given the choice of new income tax plus property tax or old income tax. As people moved into new properties, the choice would be removed i.e. they would have to pay the new flat rate income tax plus property tax.

    Like

    • 323
      It's all Balls says:

      You are obviously not a pensioner (neither am I before you ask). House values do not straight line equate with income. I’ve never see anyone pay their bill at Sainsbury’s with a brick.

      Many pensioners live in properties now worth a lot of money because they have lived there a long time. They will have built up a network of social contacts which are increasingly important the older one becomes.

      For those who suggest that old people should sell up and move – why the hell should they move from an area they have lived in many years. This is a fascist concept developed by a muppet who once told a good joke.

      Like

      • 391
        smilie in your stout says:

        You’re never going to find the “perfect tax”. If we look at income tax, that’s pretty impervious to the changing demands of life – people pay roughly the same whether they are single, living off parents at home or struggling with a young family.

        Most people have usually paid off their mortgage by the time they retire. Further I wasn’t proposing that the whole of the income tax burden be placed on property tax. I am talking about a shift.

        If it is considered a serious bar to property tax a reduced rate or total exemption for pensioners could easily be arranged.

        The facts are that a lot of people downsize after retirement.

        I don’t think there are any painless solutions to tax. The current emphasis on a graded income tax, creates poverty traps for people at the bottom of the income scale – and creates welfare dependency with all its attendant evils.

        Once a property tax is in place (and I stressed it cannot be introduced overnight) people will be able to make rational decisions, looking to the future, knowing that they will have to be able to cover the property tax in old age (but knowing also that their income tax bill is likely to be much lower).

        Like

    • 325
      shelling-out says:

      …and what about people who live in rented properties? Are they exempt?

      Not all of us property owners are wealthy. We paid a huge chunk of tax (Stamp Duty) when we bought the houses, so please tell me why we should be taxed on them again?

      There are people living in this country who don’t even tax their cars. As far as I can tell, this is just another way of using our hard-earned to make up the defecit.

      Like

      • 394
        smilie in your stout says:

        The tax is on the property. Any freeholder who rents out will expect to recover some or all of the tax through rents.

        It’s very true that not all property owners are wealthy but neither are all income tax payers.

        I think with a property tax we could get rid of Stamp Duty once and for all – it’s a nonsense.

        AS for people who don’t tax their cars, there again is an example of a tax that is not a good one. The tax dodgers do very nicely thanks (just like the self-employed dodge their fair share of income tax). It makes much more sense to take the tax from petrol duty or a tax on new cars. You probably still need licensing for law enforcement purposes, although I am not entirely convinced of that since criminals get round licensing – but the petrol duty can pay for that.

        Taxes should be fair, clear and very difficult to dodge. A property tax ticks the boxes, once every one is aware of it being in place. I would exempt current property owners from the tax. You would only become liable after you bought a new property.

        We need to reform our tax system so that we can dismantle the welfare dependency system and squeeze as much tax dodging out of the system as possible.

        Like

  84. 320
    Effin Discusted says:

    4. Knobcheese, yea don’t we all hate it! Right motherfuckers.

    Like

  85. 326

    For Gawd’s sake, Guido, don’t tell them, let them find out at the election!

    Ampers

    Like

  86. 343
    ex Libris says:

    Personally, I would tax chavs on sink estates, anyone claiming squillions in benefits with packs of feral children and/or flat screen tv’s, and yoofs in da chave cars wid da fat exhausts who keep me awake at night – fine if they are working, but cut their ruddy benefits – I have to WORK to buy my flat screen tv!!

    And as for inheriting a house/money from your family, what is wrong with that? They have obviously WORKED for it, so sod the commie twats who want to take it awake and give it to the Wayne and Waynetta Slobs !!

    Cut benefits except for the genuine (and give local benefits offices the freedom to discriminate) and force the lazy sods to take ANY job rather than having to see foreigners working hard to get on – balance the books a little.

    Vince Cable – what a knob! What is it with the Lib Dums?? It is like watching the Muppet Show but without the humour. There is not a single Lib Dum with a cohesive policy on anything – they couldn’t even agree about how to fight their way out of a paper bag.

    Why not tax MPs extra for their expenses? Now, that would be a vote winner!!!

    Like

    • 375
      Anonymous says:

      Are you the same person who, upon disagreeing with someone on this board, resorts to calling them a “mong”? The reason I ask is that you display about the same intellectual acumen, social knowledge, and love of cliche.

      Like

      • 382
        ex Libris says:

        No – I am one of a hunted species called the Middle Class who is sick to the back teeth (literally – because I can’t afford a private dentist for remedial work; another Liebour ‘success’) and who cannot afford any more taxes to support the feckless bloodsuckers and tide of benefit-seeking immigrants.

        Now go away and reread your washed-up Guardianista Junta Propaganda Handbook. I do not refer to people as ‘Mongs’ (never use the word, unlike you), I am well-educated (as my child never will be due to Liebour) and I really, really resent paying for dipstick Media Studies for the E grade students and MY child winding up in debt because we are still a smidgen above any cut-off point for benefits ourselves. Why doesn’t McThief just confiscate my wages and dish me out a bit of pocket money to ease it’s conscience? Everything I have, I have worked for and, if I want to spend it on MY family, then that is NOT any damned business of HM Government or the Polly Toynbee fanclub you are so obviously a member of. I come from a working class broken home and have WORKED for things, not stolen, run amok, beaten folk up, scrounged benefits, bred like a rabbit or been a thieving MP so I will be damned if YOU are going to slag me off because you are a Liebour apologist “MONG’! (it seems you will understand that word more than I).

        Like

        • 397
          Cato Street Conspirator says:

          You sound like a bit of a failure to me ex Libris and you’re blaming everyone else. I bet you’ve got dandruff as well. Still. you can always comfort yourself with cheap Scotch from Tesco.

          Like

        • 399
          ex Libris says:

          Cato Street Arsehole – No, I am not a failure, I don’t blame others, just the arsewipes in power, of which you are obviusly a suppoerter, if not a ZanuLiebor freakazoid twat. Get back to the bunker and comfort your leader in the final weeks.

          No, I don’t have dandruff – but I bet you have premature ejaculation looking at pics of puppies. And I don’t drink scotch, either. Shame you are so wrong on so many counts, but what can onr expect of the tosspots like you?

          Like

        • 402
          Zaza the cat says:

          I think Anon and Cato are off the mark; Ex Libris sounds like alot of normal people in the street who are seriously worried about how on earth to fund the next tax.

          Not all of us get MPs pay and expenses and I, too, resent my hard-earned tax money being frittered away by this Government of fools. If governments taxed less, then people would be less dissatisfied. The abolition of the 10p tax band did much to worsen the plight of the lower paid; the taxes upon taxes philosophy is just ripping off the middle class, who have just as much right to complain about bailing out absolutely everybody and everything as any other persecuted group.

          Like

  87. 349
    Cometh the hour,cometh the Guido writers says:

    Still all ranting and raving on here are we?

    Haven’t got the balls to join me at Downing St,eh?

    And Sheffield is SUCH a long way – better off writing on this thread eh?

    After all,don’t expect a Guido writer to actually take ACTION – they only ever TALK about it!

    Shame on you all – we could have this Brown c’unt out within a month if we all gathered in our millions wherever the hell we CAN legally gather in London – hundreds of thousands would join each day.

    But I suppose the answer to this entry will be a load of “brave” people joking about what a tosser I am and how you aren’t allowed to gather in a demonstration and how clever they are with their double entendre and hilarious jokes – all the while your enemy of the UK Brown is double dealing us every step of the way.

    He has truly screwed you ALL and your response is to write and complain about it on this site.Fine,but when will any of you actually DO something about it?

    Join me on Wednesday at the corner of Downing St and Westminster – we can make a difference and get 5 million BRITS out by the weekend – a kind of reception party for the Brown scum when he returns from USA.

    Like

  88. 355

    I predict an exodus

    Like

    • 364
      tat says:

      hey stop ripping off bob marley song titles.
      ever heard of intellectual property rights you thief?

      Like

      • 379
        The Sleeper says:

        You idiot tat.

        IPR applies to content (like lyrics)..not titles.

        Check things out before you try to demonstrate your (lack of) intellect.

        Like

        • 393
          thick as thieves says:

          I’m a fucking genius you retard.
          but today I have been having some fun for a change.
          it is tiring work being a hero and toiling forever onwards on my epic journey to reach the land they call ‘democracy’. but I will march on and I will crack open as many troll skulls as get in my way for this is God’s Work and must be done for the greater good. whether they like it or not.
          so don’t begrudge the great thick as thieves just one day’s respite as he makes his heroic way towards the promised land where independent candidates hold the balance of power in parliament.
          honestly sleeper you really are an uncharitable and churlish fellow.
          with high levels of status anxiety judging by your last humourless post.

          Like

  89. 371
    Psephologist says:

    36 weeks and the Limp Dums and NaNuLab will be toast.

    Like

  90. 389
    Lunatic RSwipes says:

    Screw you all. If you have something, we will tax you til you don’t have anything. If you dont have anything, it won’t be worth working to gain something, because we will tax it at 100%.

    I decree you will enjoy the gulag, as the state will sponsor BBC Celebrity Come Dancing On The Freewill of the People.

    Screw you all and goodnight.

    Like

  91. 395
    Patriotic says:

    Dont know why the hell all this fuss over what the LibDonkeys say,they have about as much chance of winning an election as I have of becoming king of England.
    As for liebour they are toast and Meddlesome knows it,the masterplan is the EUSSR and all of us lot are watching our country being given away by these treacherous bastards.

    Like

  92. 396
    13eastie says:

    As usual the Lib Dems are unable to refrain from conflating the issue. What the fuck have tax-breaks for low earners got to do with people who have already paid shit-loads of tax?

    “Mansion”-ownership comes already at an extremely high price tax-wise.

    Anyone who own such a property outright has already either paid massive amounts of income tax before paying their mortgage off, or some kind (but very shy nowadays) soul has “donated” a shed-load of inheritance tax.

    It’s quite possible that these folk enjoy relatively little income, since to most people outside the yellow-belly-party it is very obvious that the price of one’s home is not strongly linked with one’s income at all.

    VOTE LIB-DEM TO PAY TAX TWICE!

    Like

    • 398
      13eastie says:

      A real-world example:

      Mortgage: £1m

      Salary: £300K

      Extra Tax Bill: £50K (i.e. 17%)

      Income Tax Rate: 50%

      Total “Income” Tax: 67%

      VOTE LIB-DEM FOR 67% TAX!

      Like

  93. 404
    Fik arse Feevs says:

    I’m a foockeeng geneeoos yuoo reterd. Bork bork bork! boot tudey I hefe-a beee hefeeng sume-a foon fur a chunge-a. it is tureeng vurk beeeng a heru und tueeling furefer oonverds oon my ipeec juoorney tu reech zee lund zeey cell ‘demucrecy’. boot I veell merch oon und I veell creck oopee es muny trull skoolls es get in my vey fur thees is Gud’s Vurk und moost be-a dune-a fur zee greeter guud. Bork bork bork!

    vhezeer zeey leeke-a it oor nut. Um de hur de hur de hur. su dun’t begroodge-a zee greet theeck es theeefes joost oone-a dey’s respeete-a es he-a mekes hees herueec vey tooerds zee prumeesed lund vhere-a independent cundeedetes huld zee belunce-a ooff pooer in perleeement. Um de hur de hur de hur.

    hunestly sleeper yuoo reelly ere-a un unchereeteble-a und choorleesh felloo. veet heegh lefels ooff stetoos unxeeety joodgeeng by yuoor lest hoomuoorless pust. Um de hur de hur de hur.

    Like

  94. 407
    john miller says:

    The concept is the same as taxing someone’s savings. A revenue tax on a capital amount.

    Earn £1000. Pay tax and NI on it, leaving you £700. Put it in the building society and pay tax on the £700 (as well as tax on the interest it earns) in perpetuity.

    Welcome to the land of double taxation and 100% tax rates.

    And should any LibDem hasten to tell me that Council Tax is also a revenue tax on a capital asset, I shall remind them of their party policy in times gone by. Remember local income tax?

    Like

  95. 408
    Anonymous says:

    Hmm, didn’t the Liberals ensure Labour were able to continue to wreak havoc in the 60’s by just such an alliance. Some of us remember Nick old boy and will not forget.

    Like

  96. 410
    Izmi Atonreett says:

    Don’t get in a tizz about the latest pronouncements by the LibDems – they haven’t a hope in hell of forming a government – and we all know if they’re asked to make a decision on anything they run round like headless chickens.

    They might as well announce, “Vote us into power and we’ll put a man on Mars withing 12 months”.

    Like

  97. 411
    Izmi Atonreett says:

    I know, the third word from last should read within, not withing.

    It’s academic because they’ll still not get in!

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

Polling Averages Trend | PoliticalBetting.com
Speaker Faces Questions Over Pass for Donor | Sun
Tory MPs’ Visit to Israel Condemned | Guardian
Labour Was Too Slow for the Squeezed Middle | FT
Papers Pan Cam’s Immigration Pledge | ConHome
Deane of St Edmundsbury? | Times
Pay Volunteers and They Become Cheap Labour | Jill Kirby
UKIP Fundraiser Was Jailed for Running Brothels | Times
Bercow Faces Probe Over Pass Mystery | Mirror
Harman Breaks Rules on Paying Staff | Express
Labour Whinge About Sandi Toksvig Joke | Mail


new-advert
Westbourne-Change-Opinion Guido-hot-button (1)


John McTernan told Channel 4 News

“You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, you don’t win in politics without breaking legs.”



Rob Wilson says:

Without Predujice

Darling

What time will dinner be ready this evening?

Yours

Rob Wilson MP

In the interests of me I am placing a copy of this email in the public domain.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads