During the 2007 election campaign, it was billed by the SNP as “the biggest tax cut in a generation” but this weekend sees the SNP manifesto team frantically working behind the scenes to either patch up their Local Income Tax policy or pull the plug on it entirely. My personal prediction is that there is too much uncertainty, too much suspicion around what the tax will mean for Scottish taxpayers that the Nationalists will decide it’s not worth including as a blatant target for attack in its manifesto. The hitherto successful strategy of messaging ‘record, team, vision’ will be deemed as critical to carrying them over the line and anything (or anyone) that works against that over the next few weeks will be swept aside, LIT included.
This whole issue stems from the electorally toxic news that Alex Salmond has been using the courts to prevent the detail of Local Income Tax going public, inviting rival parties and the wider public to speculate on what is so damaging in the calculations that we shouldn’t get to see them less than a month shy of an election. Amid heightened tensions over how Scotland can meet a spending squeeze of some 12.5% over the next few years, this is the worst problem at the worst time for the SNP and, really, someone, somewhere has taken their eye off the ball.
The bad news appears to be that, had Local Income Tax been introduced, there would have been a shortfall of some £800m which would have required a rate of 4.6p on income tax to cover. This adds fuel to the flame of the otherwise disingenuous claim that Local Income Tax would make Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK. (It may carry the highest level of income tax, but that is to ignore the key point that Council Tax would be scrapped)
The appeal of Local Income Tax (which, along with Land Value Tax, I am very much a fan of) is that payment largely comes through PAYE so that people know what they are paid net from their employer is largely theirs to spend on whatever they please. That is, the money that lands in your account each month is yours. There is little doubt that the simple mechanics of Council Tax can get people into trouble with cash management and no doubt reduce the tax intake for councils as some simply cannot afford to pay the tax once the reminders start landing on doormats.
The hyperlocalism of the tax is appealing too, although the SNP wish to set the rate nationally. Under the Lib Dem proposal the local councils would be more accountable and value for money would be more recognisable. That can only be an improvement on the status quo.
However, as fine an idea as this local tax is, it is facing some new challenges in 2011:
– We’ve already voted on Local Income Tax and the electorate will be less sympathetic to even the same promises this time around. The SNP may well claim that it needs more MSPs to deliver the policy in the face of hostile opposition but, rightly or wrongly, I can envisage that falling on deaf ears.
– We’ve had four years of a Council Tax freeze which, somewhat ironically, makes Council Tax less unpopular than it might have been and arguably less unpopular than it was in 2007. That also makes LIT a harder sell.
– The Greens have pulled together a fully costed and highly attractive Land Value Tax policy that has garnered a good bit of press for the party. LIT is not longer ‘the only show in town’.
– The SNP is suggesting that it is keen to continue minority Government if it emerges as the largest party, how that squares with delivering a Local Income Tax that requires a parliamentary majority, it is not quite clear.
With the SNP and Lib Dems only a couple of votes short in delivering a Local Income Tax in the 2007-11 term, the Lib Dems demoting it in this year’s manifesto (1 mention in 89 pages) and the policy now a millstone around the SNP’s necks, it is looking increasingly likely that this policy has had its day.
Where that leaves us with five different parties and three or four different policies is anyone’s guess. The only option that I can see emanating from the pack, assuming the SNP does wash its hands of LIT, is an SNP/Green deal on a Land Value Tax at some point down the line and only if the numbers fall in that favour.
The tax brings in more money each year, makes efficient use of land/buildings (fileld or empty) all the while not requiring higher bills from the vast majority of houses that are banded A-E. It is, to my mind, a cleaner and more fully formed version of Vince Cable’s reasonable Mansion Tax policy from last year.
Patrick Harvie says that for the next Parliament “it is either Land Value Tax or bust”. Despite being a fan of LIT, I am inclined to agree.
#1 by douglas clark on April 10, 2011 - 12:23 pm
OK Mr Breslin,
Cutting through all of that, can we assume that the revenue required is equal under all possible scenarios?
If so, council tax, land tax and local income tax have all got to raise the same amount of money?
Would that be right?
#2 by Jeff on April 10, 2011 - 12:35 pm
Well Mr Clark, my understanding is that LVT would raise (£1bn) more than is currently raised under Council Tax and Council Tax raises (~£750m or £400m) more than LIT would with a rate of 3p in the pound. (difference relates to whether you include an adjustment for the Scottish block grant)
Not sure if that answers your question or not but Council Tax, Land Value Tax and LIT serve the same purpose so in theory they should be raising the same money (ignoring direct contributions from the Scottish Government, as is the case currently. Council Tax only actually raises about 20% of local spending)
#3 by Steve on April 10, 2011 - 12:35 pm
How about a green/snp deal to replace Non Domestic Rates with LVT, but council tax with a local income tax.
That would be the best of both.
#4 by James on April 10, 2011 - 12:42 pm
And actually the Lib Dems backed LVT at their conference – duly ignored by the manifesto team, but there we go. Last year the MPs were talking about it too, though only the Mail seem to have noticed.
#5 by Douglas McLellan on April 10, 2011 - 4:32 pm
It was for replacing business rates only. No for replacing either Council Tax or a complete abandonment of LIT
#6 by douglas clark on April 10, 2011 - 1:16 pm
Well Mr Breslin,
No it doesn’t. Why is that extra money accrued? Why would you do that? That, sir, is playing politics with fiscal policy. it is easy enough to set a rate that equals current income.
I’ll stand corrected.
#7 by steve on April 10, 2011 - 2:21 pm
The SNP decided to offer a tax cut with their LIT, the Greens have decided to offer a tax increase with their LVT.
It turns out that the SNP thought their tax cut would cost £280 million, but they were trying to keep secret the fact that it is actually a £400m tax cut (using Jeff’s figure above).
Clearly offering a £400m tax cut on top of all the other cuts is unaffordable, so they either have to increase the rate or wait for the economy to pick up before they introduce it.
Alternatively they could take the advice of the SSP and introduce a stepped LIT that taxes high earners proportionately more, but keeps the rate low for low earners.
They could use a stepped LIT to balance the books exactly, or to raise more than the council tax and offset the cuts. I’ve heard that the SSP’s version will raise an extra £1.5 billion, but I haven’t seen their figures. I’m going to do a blog about them when I do, I hope people will read it.
I have looked at the LVT proposals though, and they would bring in an additional £562 million, not the £1.04 billion claimed.
Even so, an extra £562 million to protect public services is better than the tax cuts all the other holyrood parties are offering, adding to the UK imposed cuts we’ll already be suffering.
#8 by Danny1995 on April 10, 2011 - 2:02 pm
I like LVT aswell as the Lib Dem version of LIT, unfortunately I don’t see any way that anti council tax MSPs garner a majority at Holyrood to abolish council tax, and even if they did they cannot agree on how to replace it. Shame really.
#9 by Steve on April 10, 2011 - 3:17 pm
Danny, the last 4 years was a real opportunity missed. I can’t blame the tories or labour since they want to keep council tax.
But it’s a shame the SNP, lib dems, the greens and Margo Macdonald couldn’t do a deal. They collectively let Scotland down.
#10 by Gryff on April 10, 2011 - 3:17 pm
The advantages of LVT or LIT notwithstanding, the current issues with SNP policy are entirely transitory. If LIT is a good policy, it is a good policy regardless of any particular issues one set of its proponants are having with their costings.
The main problem they are having is currently around council tax benefit, which would presumably apply equally to LVT, a fact conveniently ignored by most. Any other numbers are rune reading, as the leaked figures are out of date.
So while the political point may be good, this should not be seen as an argument on the benefits of the policies.
#11 by James on April 10, 2011 - 4:52 pm
Council Tax Benefit, unlike any benefit associated with LIT, would still be payable with regard to LVT. We did look at the legislation.
#12 by Steve on April 10, 2011 - 7:27 pm
Council tax benefit is getting devolved in 2013, so the money can be spent on whatever the Scottish Government wants, including subsidising LIT.
The council tax benefit issue is now irrelevant.
#13 by douglas clark on April 10, 2011 - 4:32 pm
Nope,
If you want a given income, how you collect it is fiscally equal. Where it is, perhaps, unequal is on who pays it.
That appears obvious to me.
Could someone, Jeff perhaps, explain to me why any taxation policy that is designed to raise an equal sum of money, is inherently unfair?
It seems obvious to me that income tax, including the right to vary higher rates, is at least progressive rather than regressive.
I am not at all impressed with the Labour idea of a ‘household’. On taxation we are all equal or not…..
#14 by douglas clark on April 10, 2011 - 5:20 pm
I should clarify. If you live in a house with a lot of wage earners, why should the cost fall exclusively on the householder? It is that cheapskate argument that Labour hide behind.
It is a nonsense.
#15 by Douglas McLellan on April 10, 2011 - 6:23 pm
Excellent post Jeff.
Like the current situation with the Lib Dems and the Scottish Water debt idea, the SNP didn’t clarify what would happen to council tax benefit monies prior to really launching the LIT policy (at least the SNP can say this was because they were in opposition).
I really favour most of a persons taxation to be paid from their direct income. Therefore I am in favour of a LIT. Council Tax is regressive as it seeks payment of a tax regardless of ability to pay. LIT is a progressive taxation.
However, LIT has a real problem. If brought in at the start of devolution, maybe even in 2003 it would have worked. The problem is that the level of government grant to local authorities has gone up by billions upon billions in excess of inflation in the last several years and a LIT would struggle to meet this level of bloated & ineffective expenditure (I say bloated & ineffective as I have not noted anything close to billions upon billions of £s worth of improvements).
I think that is why it only merits one page in the Lib Dem Manifesto. Until the arithmetic adds up it will be hard to see how a LIT can replace the level of expenditure that councils have been allowed to develop. I think that two issues need to bed down before a LIT can be looked at. The first is the impact of the Scotland Bill and how Scotland uses its new powers and secondly is to see if closer working between health & social care brings out the efficiencies and savings that it should. Councils complain about the cost of care for older people but if that can be brought down it can reduce council expenditure to sensible levels that mean a LIT becomes viable.
I like the LVT for business as the Lib Dems voted on at their most recent conference but I really do thing that it is a regressive and potentially damaging tax for households and individuals. For a start it doesnt even come close to considering household income.
I think that there could be a SNP/Lib/Green deal on LVT for three of the four areas identified by the Greens. Which would still raise more funds that the current methods of local taxation.
You are right to say that the council tax freeze has meant that unpopularity of the council tax has fallen. It was a spectacularly unpopular tax amongst older people in 2007. Year on Year above inflation increases combined with Year on Year reductions in service were very annoying to older people in low fixed incomes. In 2011 the issue of the Council Tax is much reduced in the eyes of older people.
What ever taxation is brought in to replace the council tax it needs to be locally set, it needs to reflect an ability to pay from income and it needs to meet the financial needs of the council.
#16 by Steve on April 10, 2011 - 7:51 pm
To be fair to the SNP, under the statement of funding policy document (http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_fundingpolicy.pdf) there is a mechanism to compensate the Scottish Government, or penalise them, for the effect on council tax benefit of large decreases or increases to council tax levels. Taking this policy to its logical conclusion would have implied that scrapping council tax altogether would result in a balancing payment to the Scottish Government of all the council tax benefit. See 6.4.1 on page 19.
The SNP weren’t to know that the UK government had secretly scrapped this arrangement prior to the 2007 election as it was costing them too much to compensate the then Scottish Executive for all the years that council tax increases were lower than in England.
So it was reasonable to assume that under LIT Scotland would get the council tax benefit money.
And now we know it is getting devolved in 2013, it is reasonable to assume that we can spend it on whatever we want when it’s devolved, LIT, LVT, or most probably, council tax.
Also, LIT only has to replace the council tax, not all the rest of Local Government income (most of which comes from the Scottish Government) and so surely the council tax freeze will mean it’s easier for any replacement LVT or LIT to plug that gap, not harder.
The massive above inflation increases to council tax before the freeze won’t have helped though, I admit.
#17 by Derek on April 13, 2011 - 6:36 am
I see that you worry that Land Value Tax is regressive because it doesn’t appear to consider household income. In fact people tend to buy houses whose value is roughly proportional to their income. And if they are really low income they don’t buy houses. They rent and thus would not be subject to Land Value Tax at all.
As a result while I agree that there is no direct link between LVT and household income, I have to disagree that it would be regressive. Because the value of household income generally governs the size of mortgage that people can afford, household income is generally proportional to house value. And because LVT would be approximately proportional to house value (or rather to the value of the land on which the house is built), LVT would be roughly proportional to household income.
#18 by Douglas McLellan on April 13, 2011 - 9:38 am
Kind of. The problem is that many people have been owning homes for decades and that the value of the home bears no relation to their income. This is especially the case for older/retired people. What LVT represents to these people is an unexpected and unfair tax on their assets.
Poor people pay rent and LVT falls on the land owner. It is naive to say that the property owner will not increase rents to demonstrate the increase in expenses that the property owner will face. Although low income households would not get a bill marked LVT they would pay the cost of it (but would pay no council tax so would face a reduced cost there).
It will be interesting to see what happens flats with a high number of occupants, such as in many large expensive flats Edinburgh, would fair under this system. LVT looks at the asset value, not the use of the asset or the income of those using it. There are top end council-tax band flats full of students and even young professionals that would be caught by this system and made to pay more.
At the other end of the scale, the homes of JK Rowling and Fred Goodwin would not be taxed as much under LVT as they would be under a LIT.
#19 by Steve on April 13, 2011 - 3:21 pm
Douglas, I agree, I think it is wrong to assume landlords wouldn’t pass LVT on through rent. If my £1150 a year council tax were scrapped and my rent went up by £75 a month to pay my landlord’s LVT, I’d still be better off, so I could easily afford for it to be passed on in increased rent.
Nearly 600,000 homes in Scotland are rented from councils or housing associations, if they as landlords didn’t pass on LVT in increased rents, then there could be well over £300m less each year for councils and housing associations to spend on affordable housing as a result.
#20 by Derek on April 14, 2011 - 12:23 am
I understand that people who bought houses decades ago and are now mortgage free may have something to complain about but this is not unlike the current situation with the Council Tax. Just as we deal with its effect on the retired and on the poor via discounts, exemption and benefit, we could in principle deal with LVT’s effect in the same way.
On the topic that landlords will increase the rents to cover their LVT costs, they will find that they can only do so to a certain extent. Since tenants will no longer be paying council tax, they will be able to afford a small increase and thus I would expect a small increase in rents. However as landlords have often discovered in the past, a rise in the interest rates does not mean that you can pass on the whole of the mortgage increase to the tenant. The same is true of LVT. Tenants pay the market rate for rent which is based on supply and demand. Their rent is not directly related to their landlords’ costs. It is directly related to what the tenants are willing and able to pay for accommodation. Yes, that will be a little more when they no longer have to pay Council Tax, but only a little.
On the subject of young people living in flats, I have no worries. The fact is that LVT is not levied on the value of the expensive flats. It is levied on the value of the expensive land that the flats are built on. Consequently, the more storeys that make up the block of flats, the smaller the LVT per flat. And what I said about the landlords’ abilty to pass on LVT in the previous paragraph applies here too.
As for Rowling, Goodwin and the like, we are talking about a very small number of people. One of the interesting things about people in their category is that they can structure their affairs so that their residency or income is set at just about any desired level. This makes it much easier for them to avoid the full impact of an LIT than the admittedly smaller impact of an LVT. In that case I would suggest that you might as well take the LVT chicken in your hand than hanker after the LIT turkey in the bush. At least you know that you are getting more from those taxpayers than you did with the Council Tax.
#21 by James on April 14, 2011 - 12:34 am
Someone who gets the policy, magic! Thanks for your contribution.
#22 by Douglas McLellan on April 14, 2011 - 2:13 am
@James. Dont be cheeky! Just because I disagree doesn’t mean I dont I get the policy.
@Derek
I have yet to see an example of how the discounts, exemptions and benefits will be calculated/offered. There are a number of asset rich, income poor older people who receive the full council tax benefit even on very high value properties. LVT would mean the cost of their benefits going up. Older women, widows in particular, fall into this bracket. And the report put out by the Greens on 8th April says twice that older people can defer the payment of this unexpected tax by putting a charge on their house which the government can claim when it is sold. It does also offer the continuation of council tax payments but it lacks any detail about what happens to someone when they cant pay. Why promote a new tax without revealing what you will do if someone cant afford to pay?
How can you limit landlords actually increasing their rents? My landlord knows exactly what I pay in council tax. And knows what the other 14 flats in my building are paying. Now, if the Council Tax was replaced by LVT then the cost would move to my landlord. My landlord, knowing full well what I was paying, could actually increase my rent by the the same amount as my reduction on council tax. In fact, if they did that for all the flats then LVT could result in a profit for them as the LVT would be less than the sum of everyones previous council tax. Given that they knew I could afford the previous rent plus council tax why would they think that I could not afford the rent plus the same in passed on LVT costs?
Now, if market forces dictate supply and demand as you have stated then why did the Left get so upset at the a lower limit on Housing Benefit. Surely the market will lower rents to the new limits that are being brought in?
There are flats on some very expensive land and those flats have people on lower incomes in them. Morningside & Stockbridge come to mind. Lots of students and young professionals sharing flats. Bands F, G and H a lot of them are. Again, I have to disagree with your point of view about landlords not passing on the costs.
But lets say that all landlords are the benevolent, kindly people that you assume they are. Lets look at the two biggest sets of landlords in the country. Local Authorities and Housing Associations. An LVT would result in an epic increase in their costs. As mentioned above, it would cost over £300m for them to pay the LVT. All of that has to be passed on doesn’t it? And housing associations own land that they havent built on yet so they costs would increase there as well.
What is interesting about Rowling and Goodwin and the like is that they live in neighbourhoods with similar houses but neighbours with far smaller incomes (comparatively). Incomes that are easily taxed at levels greater than what the LVT proposes yet far more than their Council Tax bills.
LVT is also unfair as people could end up with higher bills years after they had planned their retirement finances. Say a couple retires to a small village with few amenities and little land of value to developers. Over the village becomes a more popular place to stay which then drives up local land values. Which then drives up their tax bill. How can someone plan retirement without a reasonable expectation of their tax bill? How can we have a tax that does not really recognise someones income and ability to pay?
We could even end up in a situation where people oppose local improvements to their community as that would result in increased taxes.
#23 by Steve on April 14, 2011 - 4:02 pm
Agree with Douglas, one of the good things about LIT is it changes with one’s circumstances. When looking at impacts, we tend to do a snapshot analysis of winners and losers.
But thinking personally, I graduated and worked on a low income, got promoted and doubled my income, went part time to care for a child, halving my income again, and have just upped my hours increasing my income by 50% or so.
Hopefully in a few years I’ll go full time, maybe get promoted again and earn a fair bit before I retire on probably one third of my full time salary.
Throughout all those life changes, a LIT will go up and down in line with my ability to pay. Council Tax or LVT remains stubbornly static, making life too hard for parents of young children, or pensioners, and too easy for full time workers on good salaries.
For these reasons, I also think LIT is better for women, since they are more likely to stop working, reduce their hours etc during their life to care for children or relatives, something a property tax of any kind takes little or no account of.
#24 by Derek on April 15, 2011 - 7:12 pm
Douglas, You’ve brought up quite a few points there so I hope you’ll forgive me if I concentrate on just a couple of them in the interests of keeping my reply to a reasonable length.
Firstly your point about discounts, exemptions, etc. I agree that it is difficult to comment appropriately without knowing what they would be. A number of possible solutions to the “poor widow” issue have been suggested over the years, so I don’t see this as an insurmountable problem. I think that the State Pension should include an amount for reasonable housing costs rather than the “deferral” solution suggested by the Green Party but either method would work and there are other possible solutions. The matter of what happens when people refuse to pay applies whether we use LVT, LIT, Council Tax, Poll Tax or any other taxation system. I don’t see why this would be a particular obstacle to the promotion or implementation of LVT.
On the matter of landlords, I am surprised that you should think that I believe them to be benevolent. While I am sure that benevolent landlords exist, I believe them to be very much in the minority. No, the reason that I believe that landlords will be unable to raise rents is that most of them are already charging as much as they believe that their tenants can afford to pay.
Benevolent landlords would certainly be able to raise their rents when their costs rose, since they would not have been charging as much as their tenants could afford in the first place. But the average private landlord would not be in a position to do so. Experience teaches us that what landlords charge has little to do with their costs and much to do with their potential tenants after-tax income. And the more rapacious a landlord is, the less chance that they have any room to raise rents when LVT is introduced.
However, as you suggest, should Council Tax be replaced by LVT, the after-tax income of tenants such as yourself will rise, and, almost certainly your landlord will take advantage of this to raise your rent by the amount of your former council tax. So you personally will neither gain nor lose from the changeover. The interesting point is that your landlord won’t do quite as well as you think. I agree that he probably will profit a little. However the increase in what he can make from his tenants will actually raise the value of the property and hence will raise the amount of LVT which he is liable for. Thus although you end up paying the same in rent as you formerly paid in rent plus Council Tax, your landlord ends up paying more in LVT than all his tenants formerly did in Council Tax. Thus the council has more money to spend than it previously did even though tenants like yourself are paying no more than they formerly did and your landlord is slightly more profitable than he was before. No one is worse off.
On the subject of LAs and HAs, yes, I agree that at worst they will raise their rents by the amount of council tax which their tenants no longer have to pay but again I would suggest that this makes their tenants no worse off than they were before.
Finally on the subject of retirement planning, I would suggest that since the couple retired to the village from somewhere else, they obviously have no great aversion to moving, and would probably be quite prepared to move somewhere else with lower costs. But I doubt that it would prove necessary. Their pension (or Social Security if they do not qualify for a full pension) includes an amount targeted at housing costs which would cover them unless they had chosen to buy a place well above the average in size.
#25 by Douglas McLellan on April 16, 2011 - 1:12 pm
Thanks for your reply.
So we are agreed that as I am in private rented accommodation I wont be better (or worse) off? And we are agreed that to ensure that councils and housing associations have the same monies as before then their tenants wont be better (or worse) off either? So LVT is to basically benefit all but the very largest homeowners?
Your point about how dynamic the system would be (i.e. that LVT would rise as my rent rises) is something that I didnt appreciate so I will go away and read up to see how that would work. Would there not be either an epic bureaucracy that would monitor things like rent (my mother rents one of her rooms out, would that be monitored?) or a considerable lag in the system?
Asking an old couple (or more likely a widow) to move due to a tax bill? Thats a bit harsh. And until we see how LVT operates with those who have a low income I still have my concerns that older people will face unexpected tax bills under a LVT system.
#26 by JPJ2 on April 10, 2011 - 6:34 pm
I believe that the SNP ought to drop LIT for now-indeed I thought that they had done so, pushing it back to 2016 and to post Calman implementation.
It is a difficult area, but so far as I can see “Scottish” Labour haven’t addressed it at all-simply moved on from McConnell’s incoherent mutterings of 2007 to adopting suddenly the SNP council tax freeze against which they had screeched for aeons.
#27 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on April 10, 2011 - 8:12 pm
electorally toxic and Alex Salmond not a compilation you hear very often
#28 by Chris on April 10, 2011 - 8:46 pm
The problems with LIT are pretty severe and I don’t think it is a workable alternative to the Council Tax. The Council Tax needs replacing and I think returning to councils setting domestic and non-domestic rates which worked for over 100 years is the only obvious solution.
Problems with LIT that won’t go away:
1. It is yet another tax on income. Taxes need to land evenly on all areas of economic activity or else they will create distortions (in this case people diverting their resources away from income to capital gains and in some cases working less which is a rational response to it being rewarded less)
2. It will be really difficult to collect – every employer of a person living in Scotland will need to change their payroll system and HMRC will need to be paid to change theirs.
3. If we allow councils to set their own tax (which to be local and make them accountable we have to) you can multiply the problems of 2 many times.
4. It is avoidable simply by giving the wrong address, why would your employer care and for £300 a month many people would be tempted.
5. It fluctuates with the economic cycle, councils’ services do not and they do not have the tools to counter the cycle taht a national givernment does.
#29 by Chris on April 10, 2011 - 9:02 pm
My radical solution:
1. Place all the big services that used to be run by the Regional Councils (Social Work, Transport and Education), along with Housing under the Scottish Parliament
2. Leave councils to run smaller non-essential services -parks, recreation, libraries, rubbish collections, lighting and planning.
3. Only give an equalising grant to councils out of government revenue for deprived or sparsely populated areas or for nationally provided services.
4. Let councils be free to raise tax in any form they wish: income tax, rates, council tax, sales tax. If the voters don’t like it they can chose a party that will change the mix.
#30 by Gaz on April 10, 2011 - 9:42 pm
It is clear that the SNP will not be looking to introduce LIT during the next term simply because the current Scotland Bill is going to make a complete dog’s dinner of the income tax mechanism.
There at least appeared to be a stable base from which to develop LIT in 2007 but how you intoduce LIT on top of a mechanism that is about to fundamentally changed in some, still to be detailed, way is anybody’s guess.
The next four years therefore represents a huge opportunity for those who wish to reform local taxation – SNP, LDs and Greens (and maybe others) – to work together to come up with a plan for the next parliament.
Personally, I think LVT has the same inherent problem as Council Tax – it is not related to ability to pay and therefore will be mostly regressive and extremely so in some cases.
I think LIT is still the best way forward in the long term but it can only be successfully introduced during an economic upswing otherwise the burden falls on too few people. I think this is the real issue that the leaked report demonstrates.
Once it has been introduced, however, it will soon become a non-issue because it will be deducted at source for most people and the symobolism of having to pay an additional tax will disappear.
#31 by Iain on April 11, 2011 - 2:17 am
LIT fifth lowest priority amongst voters in BBC poll
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13030467
#32 by Steve on April 11, 2011 - 10:49 am
With a score that means more people want it than not.
#33 by Steve on April 11, 2011 - 8:31 am
Chris, LIT is viable, your points can be answered. I’m putting together a blog that looks at the local tax options on offer, and I’ll cover LIT when the SSP announce it in their manifesto, no-one else has yet.
1. – plenty of countries have a more progressive and higher level of income tax than we do, there’s no reason why it can’t work in Scotland too. Some of these countries seem to be outperforming us economically, socially and environmentally too. Capital gains are taxed, there is no reason they couldn’t be subject to LIT too.
2. – Payroll software already has the SVR built in to it just in case (shouldn’t have bothered!), it would be easy to add LIT.
3. – agree there are issues, but maybe if we had fewer, more evenly sized councils it wouldn’t be so much of a headache, again they manage it in other countries.
4. – you could place a legal duty on employers to do this. You’d have to enforce it, just like we do with most other taxes
5. – true, but overall it is more buoyant than council tax – wages increase on average at a rate above the increases to council tax. Central Government would have to balance out the peaks and troughs, but with borrowing powers on the way, that should be achievable. To give you an example, the SSP’s version when it was introduced 10 years ago or so would have raised not much more than the council tax. The same rates applied today would raise (apparently – not checked this yet) an extra £1.5 billion. this is because of the high increases to wages over that time, especially to high earners. there are many more higher rate taxpayers in Scotland even now, than there were 10 years ago.
#34 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2011 - 1:13 pm
“Payroll software already has the SVR built in to it just in case (shouldn’t have bothered!), it would be easy to add LIT.”
First rule of any big software development project: nothing is as easy at it should be! In fact, I’d wager that whatever changes to the tax system are brought about due to the Scotland act are delayed by a few years, due to governments and councils always choosing rubbish software providers (not naming any names, but one of them rhymes with Papita).
#35 by Chris on April 11, 2011 - 3:49 pm
Interesting points Steve.
Doug – it is not the council software I am bothered about it is the software of every UK company that employs someone living in Scotland.