The Lib Dems' new property tax plan
Clegg and Cable push for a new tax on profits from first homes above £1m.
By George Eaton Published 24 June 2011 13:23
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.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















9 comments
The fact that the government raises it revenue predominately from taxing labour and trade and allowing economic rent to be collected privately is exactly why the gap between the working poor and the idle rich continues to grow. Efficient use of property to me is that none is wasted and everyone has enough to satisfy their needs. http://www.homeimprovementfirm.com/
I would welcome the fact that at last a Party is talking about the 700,000 homes hat are in ruin here is one Trafalgar Court Mundesley 32 flats only 3 lived in,20 years in ruin and no real hope of anything else!
http://youtu.be/vNfUBcQBpZA
By your reasoning then DNAse, we should also get rid of income tax, which is a tax on the transaction of labour in exchange for money.
"efficient" use of property, to me, does not include use as a currency based on existing wealth levels.
Yes mcquade and also get rid of VAT as well. I'm coming from a Georgist perspective. The fact that the government raises it revenue predominately from taxing labour and trade and allowing economic rent to be collected privately is exactly why the gap between the working poor and the idle rich continues to grow. Efficient use of property to me is that none is wasted and everyone has enough to satisfy their needs. Those that want more than their needs should be prepared to pay to compensate those who are deprived use of that land.
I'm going to be realistic though; if I can't get a full land-value tax and a citizens' income then I will support any move to shift the burden of taxation away from labour and trade and onto land.
Why do they insist on making it so damn complicated? And adding extra tax layers rather than simplifying things? All they need to do is reform council tax (long overdue): make it flat rate (say 1%) of value and at the same time get rid of stamp duty which disincentives home swaps that would be sensible (e.g a retired couple in a big house swapping with a working family in a small house). Council tax is currently regressive in that owners of small homes pay proportionately more than owners of large homes. By promoting transaction taxes (stamp duty and capital gains) there is a negative effect on trading and unhelpful fluctuations in revenue with business cycles.
DNAse -
"By promoting transaction taxes (stamp duty and capital gains) there is a negative effect on trading "
D'oh, what, you mean that trading in houses is going to be negatively affected!
DNAse - agreed
Er, yes. What we *don't* want are restrictions on people trading houses :- We need a mobile workforce for a productive economy and an efficient use of property. What we *do* want is to capture the unearned income from property ownership (something sadly lacking at the moment). My comment is to point out that it is much better to do this via a regular levy rather than in a big hit at the instance of a transaction.