And another thing…

No. Clegg is a populist idiot. If I vote this coming election, it will be Lib Dem as our local MP is excellent; as is her Tory opponent. The Labour candidate – well, I don’t even know who he is, tho’ I do hope he comes canvassing, so I can give him a mouthful.

However, had Clegg proposed a LAND tax, he might have been on to something. He didn’t. So he is not.

You’re not wrong.

Tom,

Perhaps I can assist your numbers here. Susan Kramer “not only” has a 3,800 majority over the Conservatives in Richmond Park and Vince “only” 9,900 over me, but there are 27,000 homes in Richmond Borough that could be taxed under their original proposals.

By doubling the threshold, the number of homes in their constituencies will fall dramatically, meaning that “only” a number less than their combined majorities will be affected.

Geddit?

I’m sure this is some kind of fallacy by exclusion, but it’s more likely to be a simple piece of badly-planned rhetoric from the increasingly ridiculous Lib Dem leader.

I think what Nick Clegg was saying was that, although many mansion-owners will not now have to pay the proposed tax (those whose homes are worth between £1m and £2m); those with £2m+ homes will have to pay close to double what they would’ve before. If, for example, Roman Abramovich had a £6m home he would’ve paid £25,000 a year under the previously-announced scheme but £40,000 now.

It all seems pretty fair to me. You accuse the Lib Dems of being political opportunists but it’ll be interesting to see whether Labour steal this policy for the forthcoming PBR or next year’s Budget!

Do you agree with the principle behind the Lib Dem mansion tax proposal Tom?

No, I don’t.

But back to what Clegg actually said. I accept that your version of the policy is more honest, so why did Clegg say the tax would raise more money because “not only” will the threshold be raised but the rate will also be increased? Wouldn’t it have been more honest to say: “Admittedly the tax won’t affect as many people as originally planned, however the rate will be doubled on those who do pay it.”?

Tom, grammatically and logically you are quite correct. However, you are forgetting the influence of political double-speak, and possibly confusing language with mathematics.

I seem to remember a party leader claiming that 0% growth was still an increase. That was a interesting piece of arithmatic, too!

“Do you agree with the principle behind the Lib Dem mansion tax proposal Tom?”

Erm, Tom is a New Labour MP – of course he doesn’t.

Lib/Dems Oh No.

All tax should be based on your ability to pay. I am sure there are many people living in very valuable houses that do not have the income to pay this tax. They will have lived there most of their lives and the property value has shot up but not their income. This is a very unfair tax in its present form.

Like so much it has not been thought through.

Like labours 10p tax.

Tom, good of you to engage in debate like this on your blog. It’s very refreshing!

You are absolutely right, the first “not only” was superfluous. But I think it is a stretch to accuse Nick Clegg of dishonesty. I would imagine the Lib Dems would want it to be clearly understood that no-one whose home is worth £2m or less will pay an extra penny of taxation under these proposals.

Sadly slip-of-the-tongues aren’t uncommon in politics. Wasn’t it your boss who claimed to have “saved the world” not too long ago?

Oh I’ve thought of a better example than Roman Abramovich. We all found out this weekend that Zac Goldsmith lives in a £7.75m home in Richmond. Under the Lib Dems’ previous proposals he’d have to pay £33,750 a year. He’ll now have to pay £57,500 (if he bothers paying tax at all). I guess Susan Kramer’s lost his vote…

For one so fluent in NewLabour-speak, I don’t understand why you would find this confusing. It’s the sort of cr@p you people have been spouting every day for the last twelve years.

“cr@p”? I think you mean “21st century sustainable growth-enabling fertiliser”, yeah?

Clegg is good at picking (a limited number of) the right issues. Clearly, he only intended (I’m doing it too) to use as many positive words as possible, and now sounds daft. The numbers (Chancellor Brown-style) ultimately speak for themselves.

Tom: NICK Clegg is pursuing his idea for a mansion tax. “That’ll show them pesky rich people!”

I could have sworn that was in the Labour Party’s founding document.

Mansion Tax: I work hard all my life (paying tax), save up enough to buy my dream home (paying stamp duty) and retire to it. Now I have to go back to work to earn enough to pay an extra tax for living in my dream home? That really doesn’t seem fair.

Doubling the tax rate on properties over £2m will raise less than the existing rate on properties over £1m.

There are 4,040 properties for sale over £1m in London according to property finder. Whereas there are only 1,750 properties for sale for more than £2m.

The price of houses tapers off sharply. There are 487 for sale over £5m.

I wouldn’t ordinarily want to defend a LibDem (and especially not Nick Clegg), but surely when he says “not only” will the threshold be raised, he is acknowledging that, by itself, that would reduce the tax take, while, when he says the rate will be increased he is explaining how that reduction will be offset. Think “not only will Scottish independence reduce UK tax revenues but also UK expenditure will be reduced” and you will get the picture.

@Paul, “That really doesn’t seem fair.”

Since when has the tax system been fair ?

@Simon
Progressive taxation is unfair, as is a flat rate of taxation. The only morally fair/neutral taxation system is a flat FEE to be paid by all people that can afford it, at an amount slightly higher than cost to cover those who can’t.

Alas, the politics of jealousy mean that we continually force people to provide charitable works even if they don’t want to (unemployment benefit, hospitals etc.)

Another pointless ‘eye-catching initiative’ from another politician who thinks that a politician’s job is to think up novel ways of screwing the population for more tax.

The politician that catches my eye will be the one that suggests cutting the tax take or even hey ho a flat tax.

Requires far far too much imagination of course.

Why am I the only person who thinks the mansion tax is a distraction? It will raise only a fraction (10%?) of the revenue required to lift the tax threshold to 10,000, which is why they are supposedly doing it (as opposed to envy). The rest will come from ‘closing loopholes’ and ‘green taxes’.

Nick Clegg this morning said that by loopholes, he meant making everyone paying the higher rate of tax (eg over £42K) pay tax on their pension contributions. Now leaving aside the danger of discouraging people from saving for their pension, this tax will raise far far more, and hit many many more voters. Hence the mansion tax distraction.

On green taxes, they haven’t even specified what they are, (or even quantified just how much they will have to raise. But leaving that aside, I get increasingly sick of politicians referring to green taxes as is they are virtous and good, just because they are ‘green’. Its a disingenous approach that will increasingly make the voting public see the word ‘green’ in a negative light. That’s fine in Govan (sorry Tom, soccerball joke), but it’s not the way to tackle climate change. Again, hence the mansion tax distraction.

All the libDems are trying to do is make it appear as though they have 2 policies – everyone will pay less income tax, and Wayne Rooney, Lord Snooty and the bloke who won £10M on the lottery will pay for it all. As if.

I think that what he was saying was, “We are not just doubling the value of the mansion, but we are, at the same time, doubling the tax from half % to 1%”. He mixed his words up and you are quite right.

NB. I note that you made a few spelling mistakes (typos?) in the previous post. Does that mean that you are illiterate?

I wondered the same thing about the whole threshold/levy thing. However, the thing is that the idea that progressive taxation should reduce the burden on those lower down the scale is fundementally correct because it does disproportionately effect them.

This is something that the Labour Party should realise if it is even still interested in the progressive use of taxation.

Its about political positioning, just as the BNP’s “advocacy” of “no climate change, we’re British” is posturing intended to add to their unique brand.

[...] First, we had the strange emergence of Vincent Cable’s “Mansion Tax”  at the LibDem Party Conference (where the proposal came as something of a shock to LibDem MPs and candidates fighting seats in the more well-heeled parts of the country).  This was followed this morning on Radio 4’s Today programme by Nick Clegg (or whatever his name is) doubling the rate of the Mansion Tax and its threshhold in one deeply unarithmetic manoeuvre (expertly dissected by Tom Harris). [...]

It depends on whether there are more mansions worth over £2m pulling in more tax per mansion than the £1-2m mansions pulling in the lower figure. He may be right, but the statement as made looks silly for the reasons you have stated. I am a LibDem voter and this will not stop me voting this way, but I am not sure ultimately it is a good idea. Land taxes have always proved difficult to enforce and costly to collect.

How much is Nick Clegg’s house worth in London?