The Lib Dems' new property tax plan

Clegg and Cable push for a new tax on profits from first homes above £1m.

George Osborne has long made it clear that he regards the 50p tax rate as a "temporary" measure that will be abolished as soon as politically possible. As I noted earlier this year, Osborne has pencilled in 2013 as the earliest opportunity to remove the top rate. One of the most interesting debates in the coalition at the moment is on what (if anything) should replace it.

Both Nick Clegg and Vince Cable believe that the 50p rate should be replaced with a range of new property taxes and details of their plans are beginning to emerge. As today's Daily Mail reports, rather than a version of Cable's "mansion tax", the Lib Dems are now pushing for the introduction of capital gains tax on profits from first homes above £1m. Alongside this, they plan to reduce VAT on home improvements to 5 per cent (to encourage owners to renovate rather than to sell) and scrap stamp duty for low earners.

The move is part of a distinctly liberal attempt to shift the burden of taxation from earned income to unearned wealth (property, inheritance and land). Taking their cue from John Stuart Mill, the Lib Dems believe that the tax system should do more to reward merit, enterprise and innovation. As Vince Cable put it in his essay for the New Statesman on reclaiming Keynes, taxation should be diverted away from "profitable, productive investment" and towards "unproductive asset accumulation".

The NS has long argued that there are strong, principled and pragmatic arguments for higher taxes on property. As a recent editorial noted:

These automatically apply to largely untaxed foreign owners, target the source of much unearned wealth and are harder to avoid than taxes on income. In addition, they reduce the distorting effect that property speculation has on the economy.

On taxation at least, the Lib Dems can now claim to be exerting serious influence on the Tories. Osborne has embraced their plan to raise the personal allowance to £10,000 by the end of this parliament and is now set to restructure the taxation of top earners along liberal lines.

It remains unclear what stance Labour will take on this issue. During the leadership contest, Ed Miliband consistently argued for a "permanent" 50p rate but he has since modified his stance. He now merely says that abolishing the top rate is not a "priority" for him and that he will not take decisions on taxation this early in the parliament.

But having fought so long for a new top rate, many in Labour, including Miliband, will be reluctant to change course now. The tax is an important symbol of the party's commitment to a more equal society and pollsl show that it is popular with the voters. A recent Sunday Times/YouGov survey, for instance, found that 33 per cent think the top rate should eventually be brought down, 49 per cent think it should be made permanent and 51 per cent would like to see the threshold brought down to £100,000, with 29 per cent opposed. But electoral considerations aside, there is little doubt that the Lib Dems' bold agenda will require a more intellectually rigorous approach from Labour.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Pity the Premier League – so much money can get you into all sorts of bother

You’ve got to feel sorry for our top teams. It's hard work, maintaining their brand.

I had lunch with an old girlfriend last week. Not old, exactly, just a young woman of 58, and not a girlfriend as such – though I have loads of female friends; just someone I knew as a girl on our estate in Cumbria when she was growing up and I was friendly with her family.

She was one of many kind, caring people from my past who wrote to me after my wife died in February, inviting me to lunch, cheer up the poor old soul. Which I’ve not been. So frightfully busy.

I never got round to lunch till last week.

She succeeded in her own career, became pretty well known, but not as well off financially as her husband, who is some sort of City whizz.

I visited her large house in the best part of Mayfair, and, over lunch, heard about their big estate in the West Country and their pile in Majorca, finding it hard to take my mind back to the weedy, runny-nosed little girl I knew when she was ten.

Their three homes employ 25 staff in total. Which means there are often some sort of staff problems.

How awful, I do feel sorry for you, must be terrible. It’s not easy having money, I said, managing somehow to keep back the fake tears.

Afterwards, I thought about our richest football teams – Man City, Man United and Chelsea. It’s not easy being rich like them, either.

In football, there are three reasons you have to spend the money. First of all, because you can. You have untold wealth, so you gobble up possessions regardless of the cost, and regardless of the fact that, as at Man United, you already have six other superstars playing in roughly the same position. You pay over the odds, as with Pogba, who is the most expensive player in the world, even though any halfwit knows that Messi and Ronaldo are infinitely more valuable. It leads to endless stresses and strains and poor old Wayne sitting on the bench.

Obviously, you are hoping to make the team better, and at the same time have the luxury of a whole top-class team sitting waiting on the bench, who would be desired by every other club in Europe. But the second reason you spend so wildly is the desire to stop your rivals buying the same players. It’s a spoiler tactic.

Third, there’s a very modern and stressful element to being rich in football, and that’s the need to feed the brand. Real Madrid began it ten years or so ago with their annual purchase of a galáctico. You have to refresh the team with a star name regularly, whatever the cost, if you want to keep the fans happy and sell even more shirts round the world each year.

You also need to attract PROUD SUPPLIERS OF LAV PAPER TO MAN CITY or OFFICIAL PROVIDER OF BABY BOTTLES TO MAN UNITED or PARTNERS WITH CHELSEA IN SUGARY DRINK. These suppliers pay a fortune to have their product associated with a famous Premier League club – and the club knows that, to keep up the interest, they must have yet another exciting £100m star lined up for each new season.

So, you can see what strains and stresses having mega money gets them into, trying to balance all these needs and desires. The manager will get the blame in the end when things start to go badly on the pitch, despite having had to accommodate some players he probably never craved. If you’re rich in football, or in most other walks in life, you have to show it, have all the required possessions, otherwise what’s the point of being rich?

One reason why Leicester did so well last season was that they had no money. This forced them to bond and work hard, make do with cheapo players, none of them rubbish, but none the sort of galáctico a super-Prem club would bother with.

Leicester won’t repeat that trick this year. It was a one-off. On the whole, the £100m player is better than the £10m player. The rich clubs will always come good. But having an enormous staff, at any level, is all such a worry for the rich. You have to feel sorry . . .

Hunter Davies’s “The Beatles Book” is published by Ebury

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 29 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, May’s new Tories