[Jarred]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
As I said in the Budget, I don't think increasing the deficit is a good idea when we have a ~£78bn deficit. Cutting GRT by a single percentage point would cause this Bill to be one where we widened the deficit by over £4bn. If government wish to support this, I'm glad - and I look forward to the Aye's in the Division Lobby. To say we have a surplus is false. It is a surplus on the Welfare changes that is kept track of here. So, considering we are running over £70bn in deficit, which bit of the surplus do you suggest using?

I'm rushing at the moment and don't have the numbers in front of me. But the deficit stood at about £78bn when I took into account the cost of the VAT change from the Narcotics Bill, right? But that was obviously a mistake on my part because I didn't read it properly when I was checking the figures provided to me by a colleague - the bill was as you pointed out, revenue neutral. I costed that at about 10bn, but this doesn't actually exist, so in reality, the deficit stands at something closer right now.

I can understand your concern, I'm a massive deficit hawk, there was a point when the only matter I ever argued about with my lefty friends was the importance of a fierce deficit reduction strategy, but as far as I'm concerned so long as we beat the real life target of 90bn (if it's even just slightly) then we're doing things right. In 2011 the deficit stood at more than £120bn. If we keep it below £90bn we've still cut the deficit faster than in real life for this year, and have still eliminated more than a quarter of what it previously stood at in the space of one financial year, that's pretty good going.

As for the surplus I spoke about, admittedly that's a bit of an inaccurate term, I should call it the positive revenue change that is the result of this bill and the other Libertarian ones. That revenue change is +£16.5bn. I'm not saying eat into that completely, but there certainly is room to put that to use in reducing tax further, whilst still keeping the deficit sub 90 or even sub 80. Remember that there are also positive revenue changes from bills such as the Carbon Tax Act that can buffer any negative revenue changes a bit.

That being said I do understand your reservations and we're still willing to second this bill regardless.

[JPKC]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Except you as an individual don't decide what your neighbours do regards improvements, and thus the shabbyness of the neighbourhood.

It wasn't a serious point, though actually most improvement projects in areas of low-value are undertaken by the community or local government, so it'd easily be within the communities power to reject things like a new park, the clean-up of grafiti works etc.. Likewise, councils ultimately hold authority over what new builds are allowed in their jurisdiction; if the community wanted a lower liability for GRT then they'd just elect whichever council candidate promises a moratorium on the construction of propoerties/venues that might raise their area's desirability. That'd be convoluted though.

Without the tax though, the cost is still there, it just manifests itself as an opportunity cost (the money you're missing out on by not cashing in on the increased land values). Let us not forget that with the increased tax, it comes only as a result of living in the nice neighbourhood. These people have exactly the same decision to make with and without the tax. Money vs. the nice neighbourhood. Individuals can weigh that up for themselves.

Yes, exactly. This is making poor people pay for the privilege of living in nice areas. That's the definition of a ghettoisation policy, whether you consider it fair or not. It'll force the poor out of cities like London and into satellite towns where there's no work nor any opportunities, hell-holes like Dagenham or Croydon - places that have already seen an exodus of working class people from the areas they once inhabited but are now alienated from.

I also reject the charge that the amounts are 'unfair' because they've increased over time. I don't see how that makes it unfair. They get the benefit from living in the nicer neighbourhood than before. If that's not worth it to them, then they can move - but it's the same choice as RL.

Perhaps what we should do is stop falsely gentrifying these places and let the land value tax incentivise people to put their land to the most efficient use, and stop taxing improvements. Then we'll see that naturally neighbourhoods tend to become nicer all over.

What do you mean by false gentrification? The community, through government, doing something on behalf of itself doesn't make the action false (I assume you're referring to successful state-led initiatives that have raised living conditions in certain areas...).

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

This has been withdrawn.