Jock's Place - Tax: Who said this? - Comments

comment

Jock Coats — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:56:13 +0000

Absolutely, I don't mind at all.

comment

Praguetory — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:24:26 +0000

As you know I am instinctively in favour of land tax. I'm thinking of doing a few (fairly detailed, why, how etc)posts on the subject. Would you care to review before they go up?

comment

Jock Coats — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:16:54 +0000

Those are two commonly heard assumptions. I'm not necessarily sure they're true though.

For example, if the required change is urgent enough, as some would argue of things that are affecting global climate, one could take a big bang approach and compensate the biggest losers in cash terms. The expenditure might, for example, be worth it to ensure we have another century on the planet!

I have this discussion a fair bit with LVT. Many people would like to see some LVT, introduced slowly and with no particular end point" - sort of suck it and see.

I often argue that the case for a Georgist single tax is so strong, the potential benefits so great, that you could instantly go to the full whack and simply hand cash over to people left in negative equity. The long term sustainability of an economy not propped up with perpetual debt might make that worth it.

As to whether they are self-cancelling, that depends what the resource is again. Some things people absolutely need to survive - land, clean air, clean water and so on. If we all decide to minimise our use of all of them, even though we cannot eliminate their use altogether, the relative (market) value of using more than your share will increase anyway.

But I take your point. It's one reason why I would not necessarily tax fuel, but tax pollution (the latter being a land value tax, while the former is a consumption tax)

Does that make sense? I'm not sure it does, but I'm tired!"

comment

Praguetory — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:54:06 +0000

I welcome these ideas with two caveats. One - Taxes to change behaviour" should be well trailed and brought in incrementally to allow people to make long-term lifestyle changes. Otherwise, they just appear money-grabbing. Two - If the tax works you can not necessarily offer a correpsonding cut elsewhere as is the new tax is effective in changing behaviour revenues accruing from it will decline over time."

comment

Paul — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 06:49:00 +0000

I've just heard Osborne on Five Live. I'd swear he actually used the phrase Green Tax Switch". Well, they do say it's the sincerest form of flattery..."

Tax: Who said this?

Jock — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:07:00 +0000

"We should move some of the burden of taxation away from income and capital, and towards taxes on environmentally damaging behaviour. Instead of a tax system that penalises hard work and enterprise, we need to move towards more effective and fair taxes on pollution."

The pre-amble to the Lib Dem Tax Commission paper? Chris Huhne introducing the "Green Switch"? The LIb Dem mini-manifesto 1998?

No?

Apparently, according to Zac Goldsmith in Thursday's Guardian, it will be George Osborne in a speech in Japan tomorrow.

Apparently he will also talk about Land Value Tax:

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, speaking in Japan today, will describe environmental pollution as a market failure. "It is a classic case of what economists call an externality. Because the pollution is external to the market, polluting can make life easier, while the true cost is paid not by the polluter, but by everyone else." Given what we can expect if even the most conservative climate change predictions are accurate, failure to correct this market failure is not an option.