Lib Dems in the limelight

Vulture

The picture of Nick Clegg addressing the Lib Dem conference in today's Telegraph tells us all we need to know abt why these poor saps are supremely irrelevant. Clegg himself is (deliberately?) blurred, but of the four or five delegates visible (and this is in the front rows, mind) two are quite clearly fast asleep; one is an old style Liberal balding beardie weirdie ( the camera doesn't reveal his footwear, but I bet they are sandals); one is a spectacularly obese woman; and one a schoolboy awaiting the drop of his testes : they hardly look as if they are abt to return to their constituencies and prepare for Govt. Which is just as well, seeing as they will lose around half their seats in the election. Incidentally, considering that Clegg is, like Cameron, an Old Etonian, why does no-one call him an out-of-touch toff?

TrevorsDen

Its a garbage policy. A total disconnect between the tax and the ability to pay.

Even ignoring that the payee will probably be paying 40-50% tax already on earnings and 10% on top for NI.

And on top of that there would already be a huge rates bill.

A tax of £2500 will take £5000 to earn to pay it. And if someone happens to be paying standard rate thats a huge chunk out of their disposal income, 2500 pounds worth of 17.5% to 20% VAT they will not be paying.

Still as people flounder around trying to fill the black hole that is the result of all mof Browns con tricks - lets not forget the reason why we are entering an age of austerity.

PS - I would love to live in a house worth £1 million !

Frank Pulley

If you classify this LibDem puny political prattle as 'intellectually vibrant' it explains why you describe the output of this magazine as 'Champagne for the Brain'. Thank you for calibrating my Spectator lexicon ... every little 'helps. Btw as the 'CFTB' phrase was obviously a D'Ancona construct, I assume it has departed with him from these pages?

John Bracewell

Income tax should be for taxing income not for taxing assets that people have accumulated. If a rise to a tax allowance of £10,000 is required then people earning more income should pay to support that policy.

Owen Meredith

£1.1bn doesn't go anywhere near funding a £10k tax allowance - that needs more like £6bn

Rhoda Klapp

Another move to penalize the prudent and reward thom

And another thing..a temporary measure? DMMFL.

Dorothy Wilson

Intellectually vibrant LibDems? You really must be joking.

Michael Booth

Income Tax was introduced by Mr Pitt as a temporary measure. Enough said.

oldtimer

This is a wealth tax by another name.

As others have pointed out, living in a house worth more than £1 million bears no relationship at all to an ability to pay this tax. There will be many living in London who will fall into this trap. They will be the old who would be forced to sell their principal asset because their income is insufficient to cover the cost. As forced sellers, they would be faced with all the additional costs of moving home - removal costs, agents fees, stamp duty, legal fees and so forth - plus the likely upset of having to move away from longstanding friends to a strange community.

This is an iniquitous policy that is anything but "fair" as you describe it.

Desperate Dan

Nick Clegg's cartoon characterisation of the Lib Dems, David Cameron and the Tories is so far from reality that I can't take him seriously. I know he's been out of the country for a month and probably hasn't been keeping up with the news but every time he starts a sentence: "We are the only Party that...." he ends up making a complete idiot of himself by presenting as new and original policies that the Tories have been discussing for months.

Hysteria

"the proposal is a fair way to fund an income tax threshold rise"

WTF?

it's arbitrary (why not 950k? 1.1mm? Difficult to avoid disputes (especially at the margins of the threshold), bears no relation to ability to pay.

If we want to raise the starting rate of tax, then reduce some costs somewhere - don't just assume "the rich will pay".......

Victor Southern

St Vince was on the telly this morning. The tax is justified he says, because anyone owning a home worth £1-million or more is a property speculator.

He delivered that bunkum with a straight face and in his usual avuncular manner.

Vince, property speculators are taxed as businesses or by capital gains tax as they should be. Tax, Uncle Vince. Tax, not punishment for hard work.

Jeremy

Vulture:

"...considering that Clegg is, like Cameron, an Old Etonian..."

Clegg is not an Etonian; he went to Westminster School.

Westmorlander

Settle down everyone. This is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT policy. The words snowball and hell are appropriate here.

Let's face it, no-one in their right mind would charge a levy on assets without taking into account the ability to pay.

Oh, hang on....

Nicholas

This is a typical Lib Dem/Lab/Commie soundbite. Characterising a diverse population with very individual circumstances into catch-all categories based on demonisation. People with £1m = rich = exploiters of the working class = bad = legitimate targets for hate tax. For that is what this is. Hate tax. Spite and envy. What with this crap and the ATAU Clegg and his yellow bellies are really scraping the slime barrel.

Instead I suggest increasing the taxes of anyone earning over £30k per annum who works for a lefty quango or fake charity. Anything over £30k should be taken by the state at a 100% rate. Might not be so many left bastards willing to join these nasty, bloated, self-fulfilling institutions then.

Mrs B

Vulture. Agree. If anyone wants a really good laugh just take a look at the picture of Clegg addressing his faithful on page 8 of today’s telegraph. It’s hilarious. They all looked bored out of their skulls and four of them look asleep, one guy is even resting his head on another’s bloke’s shoulder. Great pic - someone should try and post it on the blog.
Say's it all about the Lib Dums.

David Blackburn

Hysteria,

You write: 'it's arbitrary (why not 950k? 1.1mm? Difficult to avoid disputes (especially at the margins of the threshold), bears no relation to ability to pay.'

Agreed, as the phrase 'It doesn’t follow that families can afford a £2,500 bill just because they happen to own a property worth in excess of £1million.' makes clear. The key to this is that it must be temporary - if it were a permament measure then it would a deeply unfair policy. But, as various commentators point out, it's a Lib Dem proposal, and therefore probably academic.

Jonathan

thing is, erm, how much will it cost to get the houses valued?

seems like a waste of time.

The Huntsman

1. It is a wealth tax.

2. It will be so difficult to assess as to make its collection expensive and problematical.

3. Is it to be a tax on each individual who has ownership of the house? If so the issue of what share that individual owns of the house in question surely comes into play. A house worth £1m but owned by two people jointly thus may fall out of account.

4. It is going to be a lawyer's and accountant's jamboree as avoidance shcemes are dreamed up which will, as usual, render the amounts eventually raised nugatory for the adroit but leave the little old lady who, by force of circumstances perhaps many years in the past finds herself on a modest income but living in a valuable house, the easiest target. How fair a tax is that?

5. In The South East, London and the South West there are far more houses worth £1m than one might realise. These areas contain a big chunk of Lib Dim MPs, plenty on slender majorities. There must be a good tranche of such houses in Twickenham (bye-bye Vince!) or Richmond or Kingston & Surbiton or Carshalton etc. Those who have worked hard to improve their property are going to be really pleased to be stiffed yet again.

None of this is rocket science: so why do they do it?

Answer, they really are the Lib Dims.

Roy Simpson

"It doesn’t follow that families can afford a £2,500 bill just because they happen to own a property worth in excess of £1million."

Cable's solution, as outlined in an interview on LBC this morning, is that the property owner could "downsize, something that would be available to them."

An authoritarian and arrogant response, me thinks, that will cost the Lib Dem luvvies a lot of votes.

Irene

Vulture: you made me laugh.

Also, I didn't know Clegg was an old Etonian

Owen Meredith

Correcting my earlier comment, it would cost £12bn, not £6bn to put the personal allowance up to £10k. (or there abouts, it is practically impossible to get an exact figure)

Sir Graphus

I bought my house for £250k, but last year some idiot paid about £750k for a house just up the road. It only takes a bit of QE inflation, and suddenly I'm up for £5k a year (one of us is v bad at Maths).

I shouldn't worry, council tax will be up at that level soon anyway;

teledu

Weren't the LibDems proposing a local income tax in place of the present Council Tax system a few years ago, as they believed in taxing people according to their "ability to pay" or something like that?

DM

I am sure all Nick Clegg's neighbours in Putney will love him for this policy - NOT. What an ill-thought idea, for all the reasons already stated, and more.
Thank God the Lib Dems are irrelevant...even moreso in SW London after this, come the election.

Bluebottle

Sorry, but isn't 0.5% of one million pounds, £5000? Or have I missed something?

Do they intend to collect this annually? Five grand out of taxed income? Give us a break!

Vulture

@Jeremy, Irene :
Apologies: I stand corrected. Clegg is indeed an Old Westminster, not an Old Etonian. My point still applies, however, since Westminster is probably even more exclusive than Eton: how come Cleggie escapes the taint of posh toff? Is it because of his exotic Russian-Spanish-Dutch ancestry/family ties?

Peter From Maidstone

Why does this receive any comment at all? The LDs will never be in a position to exercise any power in government, which makes it all the more odd that they arte proposing awful policies. Why not say every household will be given a gift of £1000 to spend as they choose? It will make people much more positively inclined towards them and they will still not have to test any of their policies in real life.

David Blackburn

Bluebottle, It is, but Clegg said that levies will begin at £2,500 on property valued at up to £1.5million, so presumably there is are caveats and conditions that Cable will outline later."

In answer to the questions surrounding valuations - the land register is relatively up to date I believe. I see the objections to this proposal, but I don't have a problem with a non-permanent wealth tax to lessen the strain on low earners who are taxed dispropotionately: having been self-employed for 8 months, I'm currently paying emergency tax at 30% as a 'catch-up', there's something seriously wrong with that system. Certainly, the levy must not become an entrenched fiscal tool: permanent wealth taxes are unfair and counter-productive.

Desperate Dan

Vince Cable's at it now. He's delivering a speech composed largely of a long list of blatant lies about the Tories and their policies. Its not even a matter of selective interpretation. Its just whopping great lies. How can anyone who has travelled so far from the truth expect to be trusted to hold any position of power?

RayD

Obviously people owning a million pound house can just borrow the five grand against the property. Oh, hang about, that's how we got here in the first place...

As others have said why don't the LibDims just offer to abolish income tax? They'll never get the chance to implement it so it's irrelevant.

David Blackburn

"Bluebottle, It is, but Clegg said that levies will begin at £2,500 on property valued at up to £1.5million, so presumably there are caveats and conditions that Cable will outline later."

In answer to the questions surrounding valuations - the Land Registration Act 2002 means that the system is not completely outdated, though it will require updating.

I see the objections to this proposal, and it won't raise enough money. But I don't have a problem with a non-permanent wealth tax to lessen the strain on low earners who are taxed dispropotionately: having been self-employed for 8 months, I'm currently paying emergency tax at 30% as a part of a 'catch-up', there's something seriously wrong with that system. The levy must not become an entrenched fiscal tool: permanent wealth taxes are unfair and counter-productive."

Senor Frizby

"The Cable" and Clegg are both starting to look a little tired now. There is absolutely no hope for the yellows. Lets get back to reality... soon... please...?

Chris H

This policy would knock about 10% off the value of all properties* over £1 million, which will have a knock on effect on lower price properties too. Just the thing to do during a banking crisis caused by falling property prices. Even discussing this policy will make things a little worse as it undermines confidence.

A stupid time to propose such a stupid policy.

*That 10% is roughly how much cash you would need to invest to pay the 0.5% tax, so the property value would fall by this amount.

TrevorsDen

Brillo has been told that the tax will start at 1 million and be based on the difference between the value and 1 million.

I find it hard to see how this will raise a significant sum - given the size of the deficit.

My vote goes to taxing bankers and their ilk at 100% - that would be just prior to hanging them from every spare lamppost on The Mall.

Also I see the BoE Governor is urging us to spend spend spend instead of repaying debt so
a) the man is an utter plonker
and
b) more tax taken out of our pockets surely defeats that object.

Alun Reynolds

"but I don't have a problem with a non-permanent wealth tax to lessen the strain on low earners"

Have I slipped through a spacial wormhole? Is this a version of the Spectator in an alternative and inverted reality that I am reading?

Think I will have to find another source of reading material if this leftist drift continues.

Hysteria

@ Alun - my thoughts entirely - it is redistributionist cant at its worst.....

TGF UKIP

My word we do have some young thrusters writing for us. First of all we have Pete Hoskins polishing his "A" List credentials and now we have Master Blackburn pitching to be a LibDem candidate.

Literate young conservatives must be either hard to come by or just too expensive for The Speccie.

MorrisB

I like the Lib Dems. I only wish that the Conservative Party was as intellectually vibrant and honest. I am no fan of Labour, but the Conservative Party - and the blogosphere that orbits it - is churning out so much deceit at the moment. It's pathetic.