I think if it had been left to the Tax Commission majority, we’d have had LIT as a given and no LVT at all. The late compromise in favour of a further review was definitely a sop to the land value taxers, not to the MPs.

The bottom line for me is, I don’t think we should be having this debate post-Lyons, and I doubt the sincerity of the sections in the paper that seek to postpone the debate to that point. There is every reason for us to at least sketch out the balance between local and centralised revenue raising.

My understanding of the internal politicking that was going on prior to this paper being released is that a number of senior politicians, having lost the argument, simply had a series of tantrums long and loud enough so that Vince and Ming opted to take the path of least resistance. That sort of capitulation leads to poor policy, and assuming the situation will be completely different after the Lyons Report is simply wishful thinking.

I think you’re right in as much as LIT v LVT is an income v wealth debate. And that’s a further debate for us to have post Lyons, as you know.

But just looking at this package in isolation I don’t think you can say that it favours the relatively wealthy over the relatively poor. You need also to factor in the CGT changes and the green taxes, just for starters, to see that there’s been a shift in the direction of taxing wealth, compared to our 2005 manifesto or indeed to the current UK tax regime (c) G Brown.

Indeed that seems to be exactly what Evan is complaining about … and I think we are in agreement that he is on the wrong side of that argument.

So I’ll have to give you that one. It is without question however that these new tax proposals still favour the relatively wealthy over and above the relatively poor. A Band G household makes a killing; a Band D household barely gets a thing.

Mark - I’m well aware of the complexity of the system - why else do you think I posted approvingly today about a proposal for a negative income tax? Yet every time such simplifications are proposed within the party, a significant number of senior party spokes have conniption fits. We could simplify the system enormously if we had the will to do it.

But you can’t make the logical somersault from X old people don’t claim the benefits they are entitled to, to all old people don’t claim the benefits they are entitled to, nor should you base your tax proposals on that assumption. Frankly, I’m unconvinced that when these figures are calculated, it doesn’t cross anyone’s mind that it is a neat way of presenting tax breaks for middle-income earners as a social justice issue, despite the fact that the real poor are being left out in the cold.

“If people aren’t claiming CTB, then by all means promote the system and simplify it - what you’re saying is that the ones who do apply don’t deserve any more money while the ones who feel they can afford not to should benefit at their expense.”

I don’t think this is an accurate description of the problem. Lots of people don’t claim various benefits and tax credits not because they don’t need the money but because they don’t know how to, they’re put off by the forms, the administration lets them down etc.

In fact, it’s often the people who are most in need who don’t claim (as they’re often also people who find the most difficulty with dealing with bureaucracy and forms).

The income is split £7000 and £8000, so under the LD plans they would pay virtually no income tax (c£40 a year), and therefore also virtually no LIT - remember the treshold for both would be just over £7,000. Their combined weekly income would therefore be £288.

Assuming £2,023 of council tax and £70 per week of rent (your numbers), savings under £6k and all other categories at the default, the website tells me their c tax benefit would be £20.82 per week, or £1,083 per annum.

That means they would still suffer £940 council tax per annum at present.

Given that they would pay virtually zero LIT, they’d be £940 better off compared to c tax. They’d also save approx £500 in income tax between them through the abolition of the 10p rate.

So they’d be approve £1400 better off, less any green taxes they suffered. Even if they paid the average across all households of £331 (unlikely to be as much, as noted in my earlier post) they’d still be over £1000 better off under the new LD proposals, compared to where they are today.