From Janet Daley in the DT here
"Then, on top of that, those who have worked and strived hard enough to haul themselves out of poverty are taxed, by a Conservative Chancellor, as if they were officially “rich” in order to pay for it all. Not to be outdone, Labour threatens a “mansion tax”, which would have devastating, life‑changing consequences for many people who are certainly not rich but simply have the misfortune to have lived in a house that has increased in value wildly due to forces that are completely outside of their control. Where is the “fairness” – in any recognisable meaning of the word – in any of this?"
Now, all of us LVT Jihadists on here would likely take issue with this sentiment, as regards house prices. But, working as I do at the coal face of personal finance, I am increasingly meeting people who are not at all happy with the massive house price (aka land price) increases since the 1980's, but really going stratospheric from 1997. They can see full well that not only are such increases bad for their children but they also freely admit that they have not 'earned' this wealth and by implication that that is a Bad Thing. They instinctively know that not 'earning' wealth is not good. They know that if they move up they are no better off as they will have to pay more for what they are buying in direct proportion to what they are selling. BTW this includes many PWIM, who would be happy to see lower prices for their grandchildren even if it meant lower prices for themselves. I have carried out a straw poll and most would be happy with LVT (assuming it dealt with silly house prices) as long as it replaced pretty well all other taxes. When you add in the Citizens Income idea to square the circle they really start to go for it.
Clearly there are exceptions, those that are cashing out, usually to downsize and retire and - I'll give you one guess as to the other exception - yes, you go it, BtL 'investors'.
In the former case I reckon most would still be happy, as long as what they were buying also reduced in proportion, which it would.
So the real problem is with BtL 'investors'. And just why should anyone worry about them?
I reckon that properly 'marketed' the LVT/CI argument is easily winable.
