Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B921 - Alternative Tax (Amendment) Bill 2016 (Second Reading) Watch

Announcements
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    B921 - Alternative Tax (Amendment) Bill 2016, TSR Government (Second Reading)


    THE ALTERNATIVE TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL 2016
    A Bill to make the tax system both more progressive and more redistributive.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS

    1. Section 1. 2) of the Alternative Tax Act is to be replaced with "(1) For the purposes of this bill, "Ground Rent" is defined as: "the capital amount that an estate of fee simple in the land might reasonably be expected to realise upon rental for twelve months assuming that any improvements to the land, had not been made, and assuming that the land may continue to be used for any purpose for which it is being used or could be used at the date of valuation".

    SECTION 2: GROUND RENT TAX

    1. Section 4 of the Alternative Tax Act is to be replaced with:

    "Ground Rent Tax
    1. The Freeholder shall pay an annual tax of 30% of the Ground Rent of land (henceforth referred to as 'Ground Rent Tax)'.
    2. A Ground Rent Tax Commission shall come into force; and
    i. It shall have responsibility to determine current and all subsequent site values in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    ii. Where there are multiple Leaseholders upon a single site, the Ground Rent Tax shall be charged in proportion to the property sizes upon that site.
    iii. Site values shall be re-evaluated every five years"
    3. This Tax will not affect any publicly owned property

    SECTION 3: COMMENCEMENT, SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT

    (1) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    (2) This Act will come into force following Royal Assent.
    (3) This Act will be cited as the The Alternative Tax (Amendment) Act 2016.

    CostingsTotal land only rental value in the UK = £210bn
    30% tax £63bn
    This should bring in £63bn per year, and keeps the abolition of council tax and business rates.

    http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/p/valu...-receipts.htmlhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/data...perties-mappedhttp://www.andywightman.com/docs/LVT_england_final.pdfhttp://www.labourland.org/downloads/...r_the_rich.pdf


    notesThe changes for Second Reading
    1. The definition has been amended
    2. The wording has been amended to incorporate legal language, such as 'Freeholder' and 'Leaseholder' in place of Landowner and Property Holder
    3. The formatting has been amended to make it more clear as to what the Ground Rent Commission's responsibilities are.

    Original Bill for reference:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3649081
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Changes?

    And probably still a pile of tripe. If the only change is the definition then **** no, what you want to do is base it on a figure that is literally impossible to accurately calculate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Changes?

    And probably still a pile of tripe. If the only change is the definition then **** no, what you want to do is base it on a figure that is literally impossible to accurately calculate.
    If you didn't bother reading the post, why bother commenting?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Aye
    So informative, I gained so much information from this that must be commented on and without reading it I would have been totally lost.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You know, all you've done is raised the LVT from was it 200bn that I calculated all the way up to 1.2tn, literally a single tax that will literally take about 65% of GDP and with all other taxes maintained you have just made net taxation OVER ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF GDP.

    EDIT: my mistake, I got the date way too high because I forgot to consider rental value rather than land value, but given the two will be rather strongly linked it is still just a sort of LVT that is very hard to pin down the values for.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. The most important thing for you to define in s1 is obviously 'ground rent' - I would have hoped that the discussions in the first reading showed you that your definition is far from uncontroversial.

    If you change that, I'll abstain but I'm strongly considering submitting an amendment myself.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. The most important thing for you to define in s1 is obviously 'ground rent' - I would have hoped that the discussions in the first reading showed you that your definition is far from uncontroversial.

    If you change that, I'll abstain but I'm strongly considering submitting an amendment myself.
    You'll have to wait until the next term and hope you beat a repeal, unless another arrangement is made where you can write an amendment, and I would be happy to help given there are finer points that need working on by rates, and then if that fails another repeal vote.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You'll have to wait until the next term and hope you beat a repeal, unless another arrangement is made where you can write an amendment, and I would be happy to help given there are finer points that need working on by rates, and then if that fails another repeal vote.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ray has confirmed that he will allow multiple Bills on one topic during the same Parliament so long as they are not substantially the same Bill.

    Edit: also I doubt you'll like my amendment much more than the original
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. The most important thing for you to define in s1 is obviously 'ground rent' - I would have hoped that the discussions in the first reading showed you that your definition is far from uncontroversial.

    If you change that, I'll abstain but I'm strongly considering submitting an amendment myself.
    IT was that the definition was wrong, which was why it had to be changed. The tax is on freeholders, though where there are multiple leaseholders, the tax is expected to be passed on to them, the old definition did not specify properly within context what Ground Rent was being referred to as.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Ray has confirmed that he will allow multiple Bills on one topic during the same Parliament so long as they are not substantially the same Bill.

    Edit: also I doubt you'll like my amendment much more than the original
    Unless you want rate increases it will be hard to be worse, and my point still stands, for a "progressive" party there were truly enormous failings that go beyond rate's

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    IT was that the definition was wrong, which was why it had to be changed. The tax is on freeholders, though where there are multiple leaseholders, the tax is expected to be passed on to them, the old definition did not specify properly within context what Ground Rent was being referred to as.
    You still have the problem that 'improvements to the land had not been made' doesn't mean what you think it does.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You still have the problem that 'improvements to the land had not been made' doesn't mean what you think it does.
    In what sense?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    In what sense?
    It doesn't mean 'imagine the land had no buildings on it, what rent would be charged?' because a) that's nonsensical outside of rural areas where there are points of comparison and b) that kind of phrase in the law generally will refer to improvements made during the tax year in question.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It doesn't mean 'imagine the land had no buildings on it, what rent would be charged?' because a) that's nonsensical outside of rural areas where there are points of comparison and b) that kind of phrase in the law generally will refer to improvements made during the tax year in question.
    I'm fairly certain that it can be worked out by deducting the annual running costs of each building that's on the land. and where there are multiple buildings, the sq footage of each building as well as the 'location premium' will then decide how much in total the freeholder must pay (for him then to pass it on to the lease holder).

    I'll further amend the phrase then, for third reading or division, though I do feel that this has dragged on a bit considering that the bill is greatly improved from the original Libertarian Ground Rent Bill, and at a lower rate than the 52% that was charged by the Tories in 2014.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I'm fairly certain that it can be worked out by deducting the annual running costs of each building that's on the land. and where there are multiple buildings, the sq footage of each building as well as the 'location premium' will then decide how much in total the freeholder must pay (for him then to pass it on to the lease holder).

    I'll further amend the phrase then, for third reading or division, though I do feel that this has dragged on a bit considering that the bill is greatly improved from the original Libertarian Ground Rent Bill, and at a lower rate than the 52% that was charged by the Tories in 2014.
    You know I'd oppose anything from the Libertarian party on principle.

    The thing is, empty land in the centre of London is huuuuuuuugely valuable depending on the length and terms of the lease (which is also something which you haven't controlled for); where the lease is long enough and flexible enough with terms (and planning permission granted), the value of the lease over its term will be almost the same as the value of the land; similarly, the value of the undeveloped land won't be too far from the value of the land once it has been built upon.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I'm fairly certain that it can be worked out by deducting the annual running costs of each building that's on the land. and where there are multiple buildings, the sq footage of each building as well as the 'location premium' will then decide how much in total the freeholder must pay (for him then to pass it on to the lease holder).

    I'll further amend the phrase then, for third reading or division, though I do feel that this has dragged on a bit considering that the bill is greatly improved from the original Libertarian Ground Rent Bill, and at a lower rate than the 52% that was charged by the Tories in 2014.
    You're really outdoing yourself right now. I suppose it's actually worth considering that the inherent rental value of a plot of Land with nothing on it is practically zero and if I stick something on it its rental value will go up significantly more than by the amount it costs to maintain that structure given the structure itself has all sorts of values.

    I suppose we are slowly making progress in that you are now willing to accept that the cost will merely be passed on.

    Let's see if we can make even better progress and you stop avoiding things you don't like.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You're really outdoing yourself right now. I suppose it's actually worth considering that the inherent rental value of a plot of Land with nothing on it is practically zero and if I stick something on it its rental value will go up significantly more than by the amount it costs to maintain that structure given the structure itself has all sorts of values.

    I suppose we are slowly making progress in that you are now willing to accept that the cost will merely be passed on.

    Let's see if we can make even better progress and you stop avoiding things you don't like.
    physically identical buildings (for example, a three-bed semi-detached house) in different parts of the UK will have different rental values. The extra rent commanded by the more expensive ones is down to the "location, location, location" and that is the "site premium" and the tax base for a tax on the rental value of land.

    Where there are multiple leaseholders on a site it would be passed on, however in the commercial sector, it can't be passed on at the risk of the business relocating or the business failing (which would mean the freeholder not making any money). Within the residential sector, though location is more important a factor than it is in the commercial sector, if it is passed on the residents still are better off than under the current system.

    Here we have a house, £360p/w, 2 bedrooms and in Islington, North London (because I'd like to live near Jez Corbyn).

    So we're looking at an annual rent of £18720 for the building, plus Council Tax £1268.59 per year. The tennant pays over £20,000 per year on this house.

    Now we see how this tennant could save under my system.

    The average upkeep on a house is about £4000 p/a, covered by the landlord.

    The total taxable Ground rent would be around £14720. 30% of this is £5316.

    The upkeep on the house and the GRT in total are less than £10,000. The landowner could break even at renting the house at £833 per month. So there is no need to increase the rent for those living in the property, and the resident saves from no longer having to pay council tax.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You know I'd oppose anything from the Libertarian party on principle.

    The thing is, empty land in the centre of London is huuuuuuuugely valuable depending on the length and terms of the lease (which is also something which you haven't controlled for); where the lease is long enough and flexible enough with terms (and planning permission granted), the value of the lease over its term will be almost the same as the value of the land; similarly, the value of the undeveloped land won't be too far from the value of the land once it has been built upon.
    See above post.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    ...so what about when you do something realistic - adding on repayments on a mortgage and a profit margin for a buy-to-let landlord?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 4, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.