Saturday, 25 June 2011

Why Don't Labour Back LVT?

I've been pondering the question for a few days of why Labour doesn't back Land Value Tax (LVT). Consider the effect of it on the electorate:-

1) The Labour base. They would be reasonably OK with this. They live in small flats in cheap parts of cheap areas of the country. They'd be better off.
2) The floating voters (C2s). Basically unaffected by LVT.
3) Productive business owners. Would find little unwelcoming about it (and they're the businessmen that the public like).
4) The aristos and large land owners. Pissed off to hell, but they're never going to vote Labour anyway. And of course, you can get your class warfare out of this.

It would also be economically good too, encouraging growth and therefore doing good for Labour.

There's 3 possible reasons that Labour aren't doing it.
1) They're not aware of it.
2) They're too dumb to work out it's a good idea
3) The Labour Party is no longer run for blokes with flat caps and whippets, but for Guardian-reading Hampstead liberals, who are as much into homeownerism as everyone else.


  1. Because the losers aren't spread quite as you think. According to Mark Wadsworth, who has done lots of calculations on this, the losers are people whose house is worth more than 7 times their income.

    Now that will hit a lot of not very income wealthy people who happen to own their own home outright. Pensioners, people coming up to retirement, people who have inherited a bit of money and managed to get mortgage free, but don't have a high paying job. An average house of say £150K, and a household income of £20K, and you'd be a loser. There's plenty of Labour voters, and swing voters right there.

    Equally some of the people who would do best are the super rich - if you earn millions, and income tax is abolished and replaced by LVT you would be quids in.

    Thus LVT would make the super-rich better off, and a considerable % of not very wealthy people worse off. Not the best way for a 'socialist' party to get votes.

  2. Jim is misquoting me slightly and overlooking the Citizen's Income/personal allowance end of the spectrum - a couple in that position would still be slightly better off with full-on LVT/CI.

    The reason why they don't is not 1) 2) or 3), it's

    4) Because the Labour Party - especially once they are in government - are run by and for the benefit of the usual Home-Owner-Ist elite - the bankers, MPs with second homes, large landlords, Duke of Westminster, insurance companies, estate agents and property porn stars.