Mansion tax popular and right: Cable
SLAPPING a levy on some of the most expensive homes is "popular and right" according to Business Secretary Vince Cable.
In his keynote speech to the Liberal Democrats conference in Brighton, Mr Cable again argued the case for the so-called "mansion tax" on properties worth more than £2million.
Conservative opponents have labelled the Liberal Democrat policy a "tax of envy" – but Mr Cable branded Tory critics "backwoodsmen".
Against the background of continuing austerity measures and the threat of more to come, the issue of tax on wealth has dominated the party conference, with Lib Dem leader and deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg arguing the need to "start at the top and work down".
FREE initial half hour consultation
ROGER RICHARDS SOLICITORS
PAIGNTON & BRIXHAM
Tel: 01803 - 845191
Authorised & regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority - Regulation No. 326247
Contact: 01803 845191
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
There are an estimated 2,300 properties in the South West worth £2million-plus, and 74,000 across the country.
The Lib Dems have pressed the case for a mansion tax since entering the coalition in 2010, but have so far faced resistance from their Conservative senior partners.
Speaking to conference delegates, Mr Cable said levying very high rates of income tax would be counter-productive.
On the 'core' Lib Dem policy of a mansion tax, he said: "A first step to the proper taxation of wealth and land.
"It horrifies the Tory backwoodsmen but it is popular and right.
"The super-rich can't move their chateaux to Monaco or Switzerland so let's get on with it and tax them here."
Mr Cable also ridiculed calls from the right for a "hire and fire culture", describing those who called for a major relaxation of employment laws, recommended by the Beecroft report commissioned by Downing Street, as "headbangers".
He said: "We have seen off the headbangers who want a hire and fire culture and seem to find sacking people an aphrodisiac: totally irrelevant in a country with flexible labour markets which have created over a million private sector jobs in the last two years.
"Instead, we have concentrated on practical tribunal reform and supported progressive firms who want worker participation and share ownership."
Mr Cable said the new business investment bank would help rapidly expand lending to small and medium-sized firms.
The Government has already raised the prospect of it operating through so-called challenger banks like Handelsbanken, The Co-operative and Aldermore, outside of the big five high street giants.
The Swedish lender Handelsbanken has a branch in Plymouth.
"We need a new British business bank with a clean balance sheet and an ability to expand lending rapidly to the manufacturers, exporters and high-growth companies that power our economy," Mr Cable said. "I am working with the Chancellor to develop a new institution that will combine £1billion of new Government capital with a larger private sector contribution.
"This will apply leverage through guarantees to support up to £10billion of finance to small and mid-sized business – a significant portion of all the lending currently available."
He also said there was a need to stimulate demand in the economy to tackle the recession.
"What we need is an aggressive programme of house-building by housing associations and local councils, with Government providing guarantees so they can build, in large numbers, now," Mr Cable added.
"We need an extra 100,000 houses a year to meet demand. That would create half a million new jobs."
Comments
by timplymouth
Tuesday, September 25 2012, 11:18PM
“So someone who owns a £1million house and a £10million luxury boat wouldn't pay the new tax? Someone with 10x £1million houses wouldn't pay the new tax?
Sounds rather arbitrary.”
by timplymouth
Tuesday, September 25 2012, 11:18PM
“So someone who owns a £1million house and a £10million luxury boat wouldn't pay the new tax? Someone with 10x £1million houses wouldn't pay the new tax?
Sounds rather arbitrary.”
by bettysenior
Tuesday, September 25 2012, 10:34PM
“For once I agree with Nick Clegg. In this respect it was interesting to read in Forbes two weeks ago that Bill Gates increased his wealth by $7 billion and that the 400 richest Americans increased their wealth by $1.7 trillion or 13% over the last 12-months, but where contrary to this 97% of the world's population got poorer. The same is the case in the UK. Therefore it has to be asked if these Foundations that these people operate out of are really philanthropic at all and where all this giving is not really giving in the true sense of giving, but a way to increase their personal wealth without incurring any tax. It is debateable as the people behind these vast Foundations get richer every year. Indeed it could be construed that the formula is to create a Foundation so that the taxman cannot get his hands on any part of your wealth, then you reinvest these vast financial resources around the world through employing an array of investors to make as much additional wealth as possible. Nothing wrong in this but it could be seen as a very clever corporate tax dodge where the ultimate owners keep hold of their wealth and pay no tax on the earnings to government, and therefore there is no redistribute of wealth to the less fortunate in society – the vast majority of us. What appears to happen is that Gates and others give around 3% of their wealth (and no more) every year but where the 97%+ that they are left with makes far more billions for them, easily outstripping by far the mere 3% given. Therefore the wealthiest people are far better off financially and their families after them by creating these huge Foundations - little or no tax to pay and most is kept to reinvest to make these people even more richer than before. There is therefore an irony about this giving and philanthropy that is not as straight forward as it seems. In this respect there is more to it than meets the eye and where corporate minds are not programmed to be benevolent in the true sense of the meaning that normal people can understand – the 97% of the world's populous that now control less than 30% of the world's wealth. Indeed a mere 2,000 companies last year according to Forbes again, the 'Global 2000', controlled 51% of the world's total economic turnover or $36 trillion in nominal terms. Therefore it appears also that those who run big business never let it go and that can be seen when they form these so-called vast philanthropic Foundations. But also it appears and where I have observed this over the years that these philanthropic multi-billionaires and their Foundations do not give to things that affect their 'bottom-line'. In this respect I am aware of several examples that can rid the world of major global scourges, such as a cure for Class 'A' drugs, the stoppage of future killer pandemics such as avian flu and the vast reduction in HIV/AIDS cases through early testing of new infants. Why don't they do this? You tell me, but where I believe it is down to financial investment considerations and where highly needed solutions for humanity are not entertained because the present products that try to treat these great diseases and human threats (which have little success) are required to be continually used and thereby continually reap the very high returns for the billionaires like Gates et al personally (through their Foundations of course). It is time therefore in Britain and the West for these people to help their nations who have given them their vast wealth to pay more taxes and their due share to society. Will it happen, probably not as it is as though they think that they can take it with them when they die and their life's work is just creating personal wealth for themselves and not for a better society?
Dr David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation
United Kingdom - Switzerland”
by bettysenior
Tuesday, September 25 2012, 10:34PM
“For once I agree with Nick Clegg. In this respect it was interesting to read in Forbes two weeks ago that Bill Gates increased his wealth by $7 billion and that the 400 richest Americans increased their wealth by $1.7 trillion or 13% over the last 12-months, but where contrary to this 97% of the world's population got poorer. The same is the case in the UK. Therefore it has to be asked if these Foundations that these people operate out of are really philanthropic at all and where all this giving is not really giving in the true sense of giving, but a way to increase their personal wealth without incurring any tax. It is debateable as the people behind these vast Foundations get richer every year. Indeed it could be construed that the formula is to create a Foundation so that the taxman cannot get his hands on any part of your wealth, then you reinvest these vast financial resources around the world through employing an array of investors to make as much additional wealth as possible. Nothing wrong in this but it could be seen as a very clever corporate tax dodge where the ultimate owners keep hold of their wealth and pay no tax on the earnings to government, and therefore there is no redistribute of wealth to the less fortunate in society – the vast majority of us. What appears to happen is that Gates and others give around 3% of their wealth (and no more) every year but where the 97%+ that they are left with makes far more billions for them, easily outstripping by far the mere 3% given. Therefore the wealthiest people are far better off financially and their families after them by creating these huge Foundations - little or no tax to pay and most is kept to reinvest to make these people even more richer than before. There is therefore an irony about this giving and philanthropy that is not as straight forward as it seems. In this respect there is more to it than meets the eye and where corporate minds are not programmed to be benevolent in the true sense of the meaning that normal people can understand – the 97% of the world's populous that now control less than 30% of the world's wealth. Indeed a mere 2,000 companies last year according to Forbes again, the 'Global 2000', controlled 51% of the world's total economic turnover or $36 trillion in nominal terms. Therefore it appears also that those who run big business never let it go and that can be seen when they form these so-called vast philanthropic Foundations. But also it appears and where I have observed this over the years that these philanthropic multi-billionaires and their Foundations do not give to things that affect their 'bottom-line'. In this respect I am aware of several examples that can rid the world of major global scourges, such as a cure for Class 'A' drugs, the stoppage of future killer pandemics such as avian flu and the vast reduction in HIV/AIDS cases through early testing of new infants. Why don't they do this? You tell me, but where I believe it is down to financial investment considerations and where highly needed solutions for humanity are not entertained because the present products that try to treat these great diseases and human threats (which have little success) are required to be continually used and thereby continually reap the very high returns for the billionaires like Gates et al personally (through their Foundations of course). It is time therefore in Britain and the West for these people to help their nations who have given them their vast wealth to pay more taxes and their due share to society. Will it happen, probably not as it is as though they think that they can take it with them when they die and their life's work is just creating personal wealth for themselves and not for a better society?
Dr David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation
United Kingdom - Switzerland”