[mevidek]

(Original post by toronto353)
But the question you have to ask is why provide any particular group with free bus passes over another? I've argued above for students having free bus passes to get to school, but they don't have free bus passes. If there's a particular reason for doing so, then fine, but can you justify prioritising one group over another and if you are doing, what criteria are you using to do so?

I didn't say that students shouldn't have free bus passes. In an ideal world, everybody would get free bus passes, but we have to take steps towards reaching this "ideal" world (even if it is impossible to reach a utopia).

Rather than scrapping them, why not write a bill that gives students free bus passes?

[mevidek]

(Original post by JPKC)
Why give someone a free bus pass when you could give them whatever it costs to buy a bus pass, but let them spend the money as they see fit?

It's like being given a £10 voucher for your birthday instead of £10 cash when everyone knows that the cash would be more convenient.

Because it's cheaper to just give them a free bus pass. I don't like handing out money all the time, and this is a better, fairer, and more equal way to do it.

[Morgsie]

What happens to Income Support, JSA and ESA?

I am on Welfare at the moment.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Rakas21)
I agree with the entirety of part 1 bar the citizens income to all citizens (i just cannot see it incentivising work). I agree with the premise but it needs to be limited to those in work (to act as a bonus).

On the contrary, it incentivises work without forcing people into it.

What we have now is a welfare system - where, by withdrawing welfare and taxing income, we end up with marginal tax rates often around 90%+ and sometimes in excess of 100%. By not having welfare withdrawn, we reduce the marginal tax rates to just that of the central income tax (at 5-25%) and local income tax. So people have much more of an incentive to work, because for every extra hour they work they get to keep far far more of their product. What it stops is the false choice given of 'work or starve', which I believe is a good thing - not a bad.

I agree with 5, 7 and 9 however I would rather see a flat income tax rate for 6 and would rather see 8 remain the same (direct taxation is the priority).

For sure, a flat income tax rate would be good (if the rate was 0%), until then, I don't think shaving 10% off all the central income tax rates is a bad thing at all. Oh, and VAT is horribly regressive and damaging to both consumers (through cost of living) and producers (through eating into profit margins) and we are making it a priority to reduce it down to 0%, over time.

[toronto353]

(Original post by mevidek)
I didn't say that students shouldn't have free bus passes. In an ideal world, everybody would get free bus passes, but we have to take steps towards reaching this "ideal" world (even if it is impossible to reach a utopia).

Rather than scrapping them, why not write a bill that gives students free bus passes?

No you don't get my argument. You oppose the measure of stopping free bus passes, but you fail to explain why any one group of people should have free bus passes over another and because of that, your argument doesn't really work.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by mevidek)
Because it's cheaper to just give them a free bus pass. I don't like handing out money all the time, and this is a better, fairer, and more equal way to do it.

How is it better to give someone a product they might not want instead of giving them the money to purchase the products that they prefer?

By your logic, we should scrap all forms of income support and have the gov't give out food stamps, housing, free bus passes and they have no income or choice over what to buy.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Morgsie)
What happens to Income Support, JSA and ESA?

I am on Welfare at the moment.

They are replaced with the scheme set out in the Bill. It's the first bit of the Bill, 1.1(1). Surely even you can read that far?

[JPKC]

(Original post by mevidek)
Because it's cheaper to just give them a free bus pass. I don't like handing out money all the time, and this is a better, fairer, and more equal way to do it.

What... So it's cheaper for the Government to buy someone a £70 bus pass rather than just giving them £70? Has it occurred that not all pensioners want/need a bus pass and would be much more content with spending the money how they'd like rather than how you'd want them to?

[Morgsie]

I am opposed to this Bill. If this passes then you will make loads of people in extreme poverty.

I would not survive financially if wasn't for ESA, DLA and HB

[JPKC]

(Original post by Morgsie)
I am opposed to this Bill.

I would not survive financially if wasn't for ESA, DLA and HB

You do realise that they'd be replaced with a fairer, more egalitarian, system?

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by paddy__power)
I 3 seems underdeveloped. This would make me infinitely richer but I still think it would be better to have this be income dependent and to use all of the extra money to end private education but that is not likely to be something you are open to

It's not that I oppose ending private education because of the cost - more that I oppose it because I think it'll drive educational standards down - though I don't necessarily think that schools need to be private, it is the freedom to innovate which currently really only belongs in the independent sector (though free schools and academies are driving a move away from that) that drives standards up - both in those schools that are allowed to innovate, and those that aren't (since they then attempt to copy best practice so as not to get left behind).

I agree there's some problems with private education, for sure, and I'm not entirely sure of the best way of resolving them, but I don't think that nationalising all schools is the answer at all, since I think we'll end up worse than even the status quo.

I think, though, that this is perhaps a discussion for a more relevant thread/Bill.

As for suggestions for section 3, that would be more than welcome. So, how would you develop it further?

[Morgsie]

(Original post by JPKC)
You do realise that they'd be replaced with a fairer, more egalitarian, system?

This Bill is proposing to get rid of ESA and JSA. Where is the fairer proposal and tax credits?

[JPKC]

(Original post by Morgsie)
This Bill is proposing to get rid of ESA and JSA. Where is the fairer proposal and tax credits?

You would receive a CI (Citizen's Income) of £162 per week, and then you'd also get any disability benefits if you need them, as this section says:

3 Disability Costs
(1) In the case of extra living costs due to disability or long-term illness, a person shall receive confirmation from a GP of their illness or disability.
(2) Social Services shall carry out an assessment to quantify the extra living costs incurred due to disability or illness.
(3) Social Services shall inform the Department for Social Security, and this shall be added to the Citizen's Income payment.

[cl_steele]

damn this must have taken a while to forumulate! either way aye.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by toronto353)
Ah ok, just thought it would make it easier for this House.

Why? Amendments and repeals are referred to by section in new legislation - so renumbering all the sections to 1 at the start of each part would make it nonsensical.

[toronto353]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Why? Amendments and repeals are referred to by section in new legislation - so renumbering all the sections to 1 at the start of each part would make it nonsensical.

I suppose it's just personal taste really. I'm not going to vote down this Bill on that basis, just noting my preferred presentation.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by Morgsie)
This Bill is proposing to get rid of ESA and JSA. Where is the fairer proposal and tax credits?

Can you read

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Morgsie)
This Bill is proposing to get rid of ESA and JSA. Where is the fairer proposal and tax credits?

Do you even read?

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by JPKC)
I've had some breakfast now so here we go.

Wonderful, tasty?

Firstly, we need to actually debate the merits of a land value tax - I noticed that in the Tax Bill 2011 a lot of members simply nodded it through because, well, the Bill it came in looked nice and professional. I hope the same doesn't happen this time around.

For sure, I'm more than happy to debate the merits of land value taxation - and indeed it's part of what we were trying to do with the Tax Motion. It's an interesting discussion, but we certainly don't shy away from it.

I've been trying to find some external justification for the gross land value (as stated in David Richards' somewhat obscure work) but to this point haven't been able to find anything online covering it - I'd appreciate some explanation for how the figure was realised.

Resources are indeed hard to come by. Banks in his (also 1989) Costing The Earth book estimated it at £500bn, so we're using the far smaller figure.

So yeah, we took the smaller figure, and used the growth in nominal GDP versus the growth in land values (as per the Land Value monitor linked to in the costing) and extrapolated from the period available (2000-05) to the total period (1989-2011 [nominal GDP data is not available for 2012 yet]). This is how we arrive at the £559bn figure.

Assuming that it is watertight, there are still numerous problems with the implementation - firstly, the Bill here (and B408) assumes wrongly that all land in the UK is liable for taxation. The Government happens to own around 17%+ of all this land and cannot tax itself. Similarly, charities like the National Trust and RSPB have substantive holdings that shouldn't be taxed either - together the amount of untaxable land probably reaches around c.23%, and that ignores the Crown Estates and land owned by the Church.

This is already covered by the David Richards paper, as far as I'm aware, it deals with the land that would be taxable, rather than total land value.

Secondly, could anyone who has so far nodded this by actually specifically tell me how much a farmer, with, say, 40,000 acres, would end up paying in tax for their land per annum?

It entirely depends on the rental value of their land. Pretty much **** all, would be the general answer, though. Farmland rental value generally, as exists in real life comes generally from the improvements made to the quality of soil etc. This taxes land as if it were unimproved, so land in the middle of nowhere would be virtually untaxed. If, however, you decided to try to build a huge farm in the middle of say, the City - you'd be paying a hell of a lot of tax. It's location location location - and yeah, farmers wouldn't really get hit at all.

Land value taxes were first proposed at a time when the amount of land owned correlated with personal fortune, this is not the case today as wealth now is concentrated in areas like the City (in contrast to places like Downton Abbey 100 years ago). This undermines J&T's somewhat unfounded claim that this is a "hugely progressive" tax. How?

On the contrary, land is one of the most hugely unevenly distributed resources. 0.3% of the people own 69% of the land by value. Furthermore, whilst you say wealth is 'concentrated in the City', you mean, people who work in the City - these people don't own the land where they work. Since, however, it's based on rental value - it's those living in the nicest areas (thus excluding everyone else from the most valuable land) that pay the most.

In the Mirrlees review from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they mention that land values are highly correlated with lifetime income and wealth - rather than focussing on just current flows of income. It's the holy grail of the lump sum tax.

Another problem of impracticality is that 40% of all land in the UK is not registered with an owner, it only comes to the attention of the Land Registry when it is part of a transaction - this obviously impedes the ability of the taxman to see who owns/owes what.

On the contrary, a title deed for a house exists. We still own our house and it is recorded, legally, that we own our house despite the fact that we bought it in 1993, prior to the Land Registry's existence. Yes, currently they only track it when there are transactions, but it's a very small effort to go backwards to see who owns what. Simply - for people to have any legal recourse of having the property rights of that piece of land through the courts - then they must register it. It's not like you can avoid the tax by hiding pieces of land off-shore. This one off admin cost is far lower than the current swathes of money spent chasing down tax evasion and avoidance.

Indeed, experiences from where LVT has been implemented (Hong Kong, Australia, Pennsylvania show that it's definitely feasible).

As for the welfare section, I broadly agree with the principle of a basic income, but I'm not confident in the nuances of this proposal - for instance, why call it the Citizen's Income if legal residents can claim it? Seems a minor oversight. It's also odd that the figures for the CI have no explanatory notes - why make a distinction between retirees and adults? Why not just have employed people/unemployed people because ultimately that's what the difference comes down to. I think an adult's amount should remain static until their death.

First paragraph of costing: "The figures given are based on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation research on the minimum income - we have excluded council tax (since we abolished it), rent (since we retain housing benefit at a local level) and we have adjusted slightly down for the reduction in prices based on the VAT reduction in real life from 20% to 7% (we have adjusted down by 5% based on the pass through rates of previous VAT rises and cuts to the price level)."

The reason we make the distinction is because of the different needs for those of working-age and those not to participate fully in society. For example, it isn't deemed (by wider society) necessary for pensioners to have an internet connection, for example. As society progresses, these figures will change, and they are subject to an annual review. I believe it's much better for politics to be over what is an 'adequate standard of living' rather than whether we should withdraw this benefit at x% or y%. It makes for better politics where we can actually have politics of values, not technocracy. For that reason - if you have some minor qualms with the figures, I urge you to vote Aye and amend them in a future Bill.

[Mechie]

What's ground rent tax, and why is it better than income tax?