Debate Magazine

Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (362)

Posted on the 16 July 2015 by Markwadsworth @Mark_Wadsworth

Spotted by Carol W in The Independent:
It is odd that your correspondents (14 July), criticising the increase in value of homes liable for inheritance tax, cannot tell the difference between money (savings are cited) and a residential property.
Money is a liquid asset that can be spent in myriad ways. Property ownership gives one a fixed asset. The house or flat will remain when owners move out or otherwise quit the premises.(1)
Homeowners are really custodians. Care, maintenance and improvements are paid for out of taxed income and usually subject to VAT.(2)
They may enhance, but should at least retain, the value of the property. Other factors may reduce a property’s value – ask anyone living on the proposed route of HS2.(3)
It is because of the laws of supply and demand and government policies, not the fault of homeowners, that there is insufficient housing and thus high property prices.(4)
S Lawton, Kirtlington, Oxfordshire

Those are all textbook KLNs lifted straight from the KLN blog.
1. There is no money to pay the tax.
2. We paid for our homes out of taxed income.
3. Homeowners create the value of their home, so increases in value shouldn't be taxed. But simultaneously, homeowners have no influence over the value of their homes, so increases shouldn't be taxed. But they should be compensated if the government does something which causes falls in value.
4. It's all about lack of supply. Which has absolutely nothing to do with NIMBYism.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog