Skip to main content

Mansion Tax - Vince is Wrong

My previous post about why a mansion tax would not only be wrong but impractical, seems to have persuaded most of the government together with all sensibly-minded folk, but not, apparently, the unconvinced Vince. From the Guardian today:
Cable did not rule out new, higher council tax bands on multimillion-pound properties. "There are vast numbers of extraordinarily valuable properties now around the south of England netting very large gains for their owners – many of whom come from abroad, incidentally – and it's not taxed at all," he said. "Basically, you get people with multimillion-pound properties paying exactly the same council tax as somebody in a three-bedroom semi. So the system doesn't work."
What does he mean "netting very large gains for their owners"? Is he under a delusion that by sitting in an expensive property people are somehow making money from it? Quite apart from the obvious point that a bigger property costs more to run (maintenance, heating, lighting, gardening, cleaning etc), is he suggesting that someone living in a larger property in some way costs councils more, so they should pay more? Surely the opposite is true. Wealthier people need less council services than poorer ones, so actually cost their councils less. Doesn't this mean, taking his logic of fairness a step further, that they should therefore pay less for what they actually receive? It's a little like arguing that people who pay for the best education they can afford for their children should also pay more to help state-educated kids. Whereas the truth is that private education lightens the burden on the state by not requiring it to educate those children, whilst at the same time freeing up seats in overcrowded state classrooms. "Thank you private education parents" I (don't) hear Vince cry. Is this what he means by "So the system doesn't work."?

Of course wealthier people should pay for the less fortunate in our society. No-one would disagree with that. It's why percentages were invented. 10% of something big is proportionately and fairly bigger than 10% of something smaller. It's wrong to make people pay disproportionately more by using nonsensical and misleading statements related entirely to the size and location of their property, and especially without understanding a) whether they can personally afford to pay more (since they are already paying higher ownership costs than people who live in smaller places), and b) how they came to be wealthy (or not) in the first place. Go on Vince.. Give job-creators a good kicking. Let's see how hard you can kick them before they decide there's little point staying in the UK.

And so we come to the final Vince delusion "...and it's not taxed at all". This really made me see red. How was the bloody mansion purchased in the first place, Vince?  Their owners are not all lottery winners, African warlords and dodgy Ruskies. Most 'mansions' that aren't owned through inheritance by destitute 'church-mice' were bought with money on which tax had already been paid! The more that was paid, the more tax that person originally paid. Not taxed? Come on Vince. Why peddle this misleading nonsense?...

I know why, of course, because this is politics and popularity is everything. Why ruin a popular argument by using truth, logic and fairness?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking an interest.

Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo...
7 comments
Read more

To kill or not to kill.

Had an interesting discussion with a Muslim friend today about the ethics of killing. Could it ever be morally justifiable? Abrahamic scriptures, especially the old testament, are awash with murders and killings, some sanctioned by the prophets and assorted mouthpieces for god. Some killing is even mandatory. For example all Jews are instructed in the old Testament to kill everyone belonging to the 7 Canaanite tribes for example - Deut 20:17 , or to slaughter Amaleks, especially their children - Deut 25:19 . So accepting for a moment that these draconian instructions were written in times when tribal leaders had fewer options available to them with respect to managing miscreants and maintaining some sort of law and order, I suspect that most people today would agree that killing people is a bad thing and should not be condoned except under extraordinary circumstances. My friend and I then proceeded to try to list those circumstances. We started with self-defence or perhaps protecti...
1 comment
Read more

Successful Entrepreneurs Don't Aim to Make Money

Of course all entrepreneurs want to make lots of money. Who doesn't? But the difference between entrepreneurs who do make money and those who don't, is that successful ones don't focus on making money. They focus on building their businesses. And that relies on having an attitude of pouring any money their businesses do make, back into them, rather than rubbing their hands and taking it out as soon as they can. True entrepreneurs are gamblers and thrifty by nature. Given the choice of a holiday of a lifetime versus the chance to create a great business, they'll always choose the business - and take it for granted that if the business does eventually make surplus money, they can have that holiday - although entrepreneurs can become so hooked, holidays become a guilty wrench away from the businesses they need to protect. I didn't have a single days holiday, or off sick, for 10 years after I started my first business. I probably could have afforded it (in fact my wif...
1 comment
Read more