Comments on: Taxation Okey-Kokey

By: Edward

Edward — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:20:55 +0000

Surely LIT is a vital way of arguing for fairer taxation though, which is how these plans are being justified?

By: Paul Griffiths

Paul Griffiths — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:18:24 +0000

I’m not as pessimistic as some. Surely national income tax (NIT) is most amenable to tax shifting anyway, because it’s easier to aggregate green taxes across the country. Only the most ardent advocates of LVT think it will replace IT altoghter, so even if we see a significant change in the balance of funding away from national to local government, reflected in decreased NIT and increased LIT rates respectively, there’s still likely to be lot of NIT remaining to be “shifted”. Can’t we just make it clear that our long-term aim is for NIT+LIT to decrease over time?

By: Peter Pigeon

Peter Pigeon — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:55:05 +0000

I like your new format.

On tax, I think the best think to do with the Council tax might be to freeze it (or to freeze it at age 65).

By: James

James — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:02:30 +0000

I understand your grounds for pessimism, and if we don’t end up with a radically altered LIT policy after this review, all this talk of a “tax shift” will just look silly. I’m just hopeful that someone in the upper echelons will realise that.

By: Jock Coats

Jock Coats — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:52:52 +0000

I didn’t like it particularly….:) But I see your more accommodating way of looking at it.

And I like the new look blog by the way…;)