Scottish Greens

[GordonS]

8 minutes ago, renton said:

Greens manifesto is launched today. One of the things I noted is that it appears they are no longer wanting to replace council tax with a LVT, but rather a "residential property tax" based on "actual value" which seems to me like just council tax with fully modernised bands?

The thing I've never understood about LVT is that you get charged more if the relative value of your property rises, but unless you sell your property you won't see any of that increased value. So if I own a bog standard house in, say, Methill, and then the nice government comes along and builds a railway line through it with a quick, regular link to Edinburgh, the value of my land could double. My income wouldn't change but my local tax would, which might force me to leave the home my family and I have lived in for decades. So doesn't it just speed up ghettoisation, and force lower income people out of their homes in areas that become desirable? Wouldn't it be brutal for "affordable" housing in areas popular for second homes? I must be missing something.

Quote

Also calling for a one off pandemic windfall tax on those large corporations that have benefited from the fucked up market in the last year. 

Good. Folk making a fortune from sheer blind luck while the economy is taking a hammering is unfair and should be remedied.

Quote

Get more teachers in, smaller class sizes

IIRC the key constraint on smaller class sizes isn't teachers, it's the number of classrooms. They'd need to extend schools or change catchments, and it's easier to invade Afghanistan than change school catchments. 

[Ginaro]

4 hours ago, jamamafegan said:

This isn’t correct - they oppose the construction of a new high speed line but they don’t oppose, as far as I’m aware, the improvement of already existing lines. Which is fair enough.

HS2 is an improvement on the existing lines though, as you move all the non-stopping fast trains off and release capacity on the West Coast, Midland and East Coast Main Lines. 

What's the alternative to getting that capacity by improving the existing lines - adding two more tracks to each main line? Bearing in mind that those three lines are already quadruple track far out of London so that's a lot of buildings and trees alongside the railway you'd need to remove, not to mention bridge widening.

According to Network Rail to do that would mean a lack of functioning intercity rail service at weekends for 15 years: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hs2-network-rail-boris-johnson-train-updgrade-network-travel-disruption-a9292776.html Plus it wouldn't give any speed increases and there would still be bottlenecks that HS2 helps solve.

[G51]

The Greens manifesto is pretty good. Have absolutely zero confidence in their ability to deliver it.

[jamamafegan]

HS2 is an improvement on the existing lines though, as you move all the non-stopping fast trains off and release capacity on the West Coast, Midland and East Coast Main Lines. 
What's the alternative to getting that capacity by improving the existing lines - adding two more tracks to each main line? Bearing in mind that those three lines are already quadruple track far out of London so that's a lot of buildings and trees alongside the railway you'd need to remove, not to mention bridge widening.
According to Network Rail to do that would mean a lack of functioning intercity rail service at weekends for 15 years: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hs2-network-rail-boris-johnson-train-updgrade-network-travel-disruption-a9292776.html Plus it wouldn't give any speed increases and there would still be bottlenecks that HS2 helps solve.

I don’t agree that Scottish taxpayers money should be being used to fund a £80 billion pound railway, that is basically a means for folk to get to and from London a bit quicker - while trains between Perth and Inverness for example are still diesel engines.

HS2 is further carving up precious little green space and the destruction of ancient woodlands in England has been totally unacceptable. It should never have gone ahead on environmental grounds.

Some of those billions, certainly from a Scottish perspective, would have been better spent on upgrading our shitty lines - electrification, additional tracks and new stations.

[Cyclizine]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

The thing I've never understood about LVT is that you get charged more if the relative value of your property rises, but unless you sell your property you won't see any of that increased value. So if I own a bog standard house in, say, Methill, and then the nice government comes along and builds a railway line through it with a quick, regular link to Edinburgh, the value of my land could double. My income wouldn't change but my local tax would, which might force me to leave the home my family and I have lived in for decades. So doesn't it just speed up ghettoisation, and force lower income people out of their homes in areas that become desirable? Wouldn't it be brutal for "affordable" housing in areas popular for second homes? I must be missing something.

I've never got this either. On the surface it seems logical: if you live in an expensive house then you must be able to afford it, but as you say, not necessarily true in certain circumstances. Family up in the Highlands have had their property values rise significantly through tourism and retirees moving up, despite them being bought relatively cheaply even a decade or so ago. The fairest would seem to be based on income, but then it seems pointless councils collecting it and it might as well be collected centrally and dished out to councils. Can of worms there as well for local accountability...

Edited April 14, 2021 by Cyclizine

[Juanhourjoe]

3 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

I've never got this either. On the surface it seems logical: if you live in an expensive house then you must be able to afford it, but as you say, not necessarily true in certain circumstances. Family up in the Highlands have had their property values rise significantly through tourism and retirees moving up, despite them being bought relatively cheaply even a decade or so ago. The fairest would seem to be based on income, but then it seems pointless councils collecting it and it might as well be collected centrally and dished out to councils. Can of worms there as well for local accountability...

I'd agree, based on income seems much fairer. A land value tax, I'd only be comfortable with happening in a completely reformed market overall.

Council's absolutely should have more accountability for the vast amounts they're responsible for. And if they were taxing people on their income. People might pay more attention to vote for competent representatives.

[renton]

https://commonweal.scot/policy-library/property-tax-scotland

Common Weal had a report that tries to pick apart a Local Income Tax, The Greens formerly favoured LVT and the Post- Wightman Property Tax.

[Cyclizine]

4 minutes ago, Juanhourjoe said:

Council's absolutely should have more accountability for the vast amounts they're responsible for. And if they were taxing people on their income. People might pay more attention to vote for competent representatives.

This is where I think the smaller authorities come in. Our councils are far too big in the majority, both geographically and population-wise.

[jakedee]

I'd agree, based on income seems much fairer. A land value tax, I'd only be comfortable with happening in a completely reformed market overall.
Council's absolutely should have more accountability for the vast amounts they're responsible for. And if they were taxing people on their income. People might pay more attention to vote for competent representatives.

Wasn't the poll tax income based?

[KingRocketman II]

45 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

I've never got this either. On the surface it seems logical: if you live in an expensive house then you must be able to afford it, but as you say, not necessarily true in certain circumstances. Family up in the Highlands have had their property values rise significantly through tourism and retirees moving up, despite them being bought relatively cheaply even a decade or so ago. The fairest would seem to be based on income, but then it seems pointless councils collecting it and it might as well be collected centrally and dished out to councils. Can of worms there as well for local accountability...

A property tax applied to land and buildings, scaled to the time of purchase, would surely be the most fairest system to introduce, no? A flat bought 30 years ago in an affluent part of town would have a lower tax than one bought in the last couple of years. Same way that a flat in area in the midst of regeneration would have a higher tax for those moving in on the back of that regeneration than for those who lived there for many years.....

[G51]

4 minutes ago, KingRocketman II said:

A property tax applied to land and buildings, scaled to the time of purchase, would surely be the most fairest system to introduce, no? A flat bought 30 years ago in an affluent part of town would have a lower tax than one bought in the last couple of years. Same way that a flat in area in the midst of regeneration would have a higher tax for those moving in on the back of that regeneration than for those who lived there for many years.....

This would disproportionately punish young people, because of the house price increase in recent years.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, Cyclizine said:

I've never got this either. On the surface it seems logical: if you live in an expensive house then you must be able to afford it, but as you say, not necessarily true in certain circumstances. Family up in the Highlands have had their property values rise significantly through tourism and retirees moving up, despite them being bought relatively cheaply even a decade or so ago. The fairest would seem to be based on income, but then it seems pointless councils collecting it and it might as well be collected centrally and dished out to councils. Can of worms there as well for local accountability...

Yeah, someone I know's dad is a retired postie, can't remember what his mum did, they live in a flat in Stockbridge that they bought in the 1970s. The last point at which they could have afforded to buy their flat would have been about 1990. Obviously their flat is worth a fortune now but until they die or move into care or whatever that's completely irrelevant. I'd like massively higher Inheritance Tax and/or CGT on property, because I don't see how you can make people pay more tax when they don't have increased means to pay for it.

Highlands must be rife with this, I saw something yesterday saying the average house price on Skye is £250,000. 

1 hour ago, Juanhourjoe said:

I'd agree, based on income seems much fairer. A land value tax, I'd only be comfortable with happening in a completely reformed market overall.

Council's absolutely should have more accountability for the vast amounts they're responsible for. And if they were taxing people on their income. People might pay more attention to vote for competent representatives.

Yeah, the system needs considered as a whole - land, assets, sales, inheritance, capital gains, income. It's not great to look at any one form of tax on its own.

2 minutes ago, jakedee said:

1 hour ago, Juanhourjoe said:

I'd agree, based on income seems much fairer. A land value tax, I'd only be comfortable with happening in a completely reformed market overall.
Council's absolutely should have more accountability for the vast amounts they're responsible for. And if they were taxing people on their income. People might pay more attention to vote for competent representatives.

Wasn't the poll tax income based?

No, it was a flat rate per adult in the house. It would be hard to conceive of a more regressive tax.

What really killed it was when the middle class folk with their older children still at home saw that their bills were much higher than their rates had been. 

[GordonS]

Just now, G51 said:

This would disproportionately punish young people, because of the house price increase in recent years.

Yeah, that's why I think a Capital Gains-style tax at the point of selling is fairer. So the tax would be a percentage of the selling price minus the price you paid for it, with an allowance for inflation. But that has just as many problems - sellers will still look to pass it on to buyers, and it might incentivise people to move house more often than they may wish to. On the other hand, it would surely suppress house price rises to some extent as there would be much less profit to be made on the sale.

[GordonS]

I've just realised I have the annoying habit of starting replies with "Yeah". Who do I think I am, Steven Gerrard? 

[Cyclizine]

21 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Highlands must be rife with this, I saw something yesterday saying the average house price on Skye is £250,000. 

My in-laws live on the NC500 route and are currently building a new house. My father-in-law is really keen not to sell their current house to someone who's just going to put it on AirBnB, but financially, he'd be turning down close to an extra 60 grand for his retirement, based on what similar properties have gone for. He's already had unsolicited offers from agents offering immediate sale, all fees paid.

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 hour ago, jakedee said:

2 hours ago, Juanhourjoe said:

I'd agree, based on income seems much fairer. A land value tax, I'd only be comfortable with happening in a completely reformed market overall.
Council's absolutely should have more accountability for the vast amounts they're responsible for. And if they were taxing people on their income. People might pay more attention to vote for competent representatives.

Wasn't the poll tax income based?

Yes - it taxed individuals rather than properties but at a flat rate.

I liked it but the lefties didn’t.

It was very difficult to collect. 
I had a Sherriff Officer client  who literally made millions by collecting overdue poll tax.

Good idea but politically unsustainable.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Dawson Park Boy
Error

[Hooky2012]

The poll tax was a fixed rate tax. I think the set up was 100% of the tax for the employed and 20% for the registered unemployed and students. Meaning a bin man would be paying the same as a GP... By its nature it was incredibly regressive.

[Cyclizine]

55 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Yes - it taxed individuals rather than properties but at a flat rate.

I liked it but the lefties didn’t.

It was very difficult to collect. 
I had a Sherriff Officer client  who literally made millions by collecting overdue poll tax.

Good idea but politically unsustainable.

It was a terrible, regressive tax that impacted the poorest in society the most and the fact that you liked it says a lot about your mindset. It also encouraged a huge number of people (probably "lefties", as you'd call them) to remain off the electoral roll and never take part in any elections. Maybe part of its appeal to the Tories?

I don't have an issue with taxing individuals, rather than properties, but it needs to be a progressive tax: income based and not a regressive flat tax that hits the most vulnerable and worsens inequality.

[vikingTON]

5 hours ago, Ginaro said:

HS2 is an improvement on the existing lines though, as you move all the non-stopping fast trains off and release capacity on the West Coast, Midland and East Coast Main Lines. 

What's the alternative to getting that capacity by improving the existing lines - adding two more tracks to each main line? Bearing in mind that those three lines are already quadruple track far out of London so that's a lot of buildings and trees alongside the railway you'd need to remove, not to mention bridge widening.

Why is extra capacity needed on a pet line at an extortionate price? People complain about Scotrail but our rail service is absolutely nothing compared to the tinpot charabanc network running across the north of England. Much of the existing infrastructure has yet to be converted from diesel to electric, which is priority 1A in creating a sustainable transport network. Vanity projects like HS2 completely crowd out those projects and so they are not happening. 

[Highland Capital]

I like Patrick Harvie but I'm disappointed to discover that he isn't a vegetarian.