On the Continent, they have property taxes, as part of routine taxation. Grundstucksteuer in Germany. Taxe fonciere in France (I cannot find the accents, on my keyboard...) We do not. But what about "rates", or Council Tax? I hear you cry. That is not an ownership tax, even though it is calculated by reference to property values. It is an occupancy tax. It is paid upon the rateable occupation of the property. It is paid by the occupier (i.e. the tenant), and not by the landlord. Until quite recently, a commercial landlord paid no rates upon empty, untenanted property. Now, the landlord is treated as being in occupation himself of any empty property. Every landlord therefore
has a positive incentive to fill a property, to avoid having to pay the tax himself. Once the tenant is in occupation, the tenant pays the tax. There is no ownership tax.
Why should that be? The answer is political. The landed interest is a powerful one. The tax exemption of "the landowning classes" is a reflection of their power and influence within English society.
Labour should put an end to that exemption. Property owners should be taxed on the value of their property, even though the tenant is paying an occupancy tax. I would not disturb the Council Tax arrangements: that, after all, was Maggie Thatcher's downfall. But I would introduce (if I were Gordon Brown, with an extra month to think about his Budget) an additional property tax.
Property tax should not be payable by the occupier. The owner-occupier of a house or any commercial or industrial property would therefore be exempt, and would pay only the occupancy tax, i.e. the present Council Tax or Business Rate. Even the resident landlord of student flats or other
in-house accommodation would be protected from further liability, for as long as they remained in personal residence.
But any absentee landowner would pay. It would be a huge money-spinner, particularly for London andthe South-East, whether landowners have had a free ride for generations. Property Tax should be levied by local government, thus devolving power and strengthening the tax-base of local councils. The Treasury would still call the shots, because Gordon would still assess the size of the top-up grant, to come from central government - he could reduce that, thus strengthening the Government's financial position. He would cheered by the Left, and could not reasonably be attacked by the Right, without their digging their heels more deeply into the mire of history.
I am getting my tumbril ready.
Drugs deceit deepens
Misgivings grow about the inadequacy of the "grey regime" ushered in by David Blunkett and
Lambeth Police experiment. Both initiatives tend to give the impression on the streets that cannabis enforcement has been suspended. The action of the Greater Manchester Police this week, in refusing to arrestprotesting MEPs who were deliberately carrying cannabis as part of a civil disobedience campaign, reinforced that impression. And it also quite clear that police forces in the more remote parts of the country - Wales, North-East, South-West, East Anglia, do not share the liberal and humanitarian impulses of the Met, and they carry on with enforcing the law. After all, it is only Parliament who can instruct the Police, not Mr Blunkett. He does not have that authority.
This irregular pattern of arrest and prosecution is profoundly deceitful. It offends against every sense of fair play. If it can be challenged under the Human Rights Act, it will be. Once the Police systematically depart from the even-handed enforcement of the law, as in Lambeth, the door is open
to greater potential oppression by way of inconsistency. If it's all discretionary, one man's release is another man's oppression. You'll be charged for offences in Milford Haven which would not have got you into a policestation, in Brockwell Park. Such inconsistencies are not to be tolerated, in any just society. Postcode justice is a very ugly charge indeed.
For what are consumers to think? Particularly young consumers, busy enjoying themselves? The fact is that neither the Blunkett initiative (made in his submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee last October) nor the Lambeth Police experiment in avoiding cannabis arrests, can change the illegality of what the consumers are doing. They are committing a crime. No amount of fudging can change that fact. Even if they are never arrested or charged, careers could be wrecked, reputations destroyed, families torn apart. The casualties of this collective deceit will be legion. It's not just cannabis. Customs & Excise are
reported to believe that over two million Ecstasy tablets are consumed every weekend (the official estimate is only one-quarter of that - see The Observer ). If this grey regime persists, they will all be at the mercy of the local Police "exercising their discretion". And that is unacceptable. The only solution is for the Government to embark upon the process of dismantling Prohibition, once and for all.
If Blunkett is to assume the mantle of greatness as Home Secretary, that is what he should do. He would have my full-hearted support.
PS If you want to fight the present drugs laws, consider signing the -
www.angeldeclaration.com
the path will bring you back to me….
