| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:CEBR figures and effects of a Mansion Tax | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 01/05/15 11:10:00 |
| Lorne, I outlined the problem with your calculations that I hoped would make it clear without going into details. To be explicit, you put nearly all of the revenue raising load into homes above £3m to calculate an average bill of £19,600, and on that basis calculate for these homes a loss in value of £1m at a 2.5% discount rate (it should actually be £800k, but that's the least of you errors) and a loss in stamp duty of £120k. You then apply that loss in revenue to all 100,000 homes, not just the 56% above £3m that have taken the big hit in value. But below £3m, the £2,500 tax you've calculated equates to a loss in value of £100,000, and just a £12k loss in stamp duty for the 44% of property in that bracket, not £120k. I hope that makes your error here clear. The CEBR analysis gave a loss in revenue of around £350m a year. Putting in the stamp duties of 2014 into your calculation, £70k rather than £120k you use at the new rates, gives a loss of £700m a year by your calculation, double the CEBR figure, and not the same number as you claim. I don't know why you think I agree the mansion tax causes an overall loss in revenue. I clearly don't and both mine and the CEBR's figures show otherwise. I also don't understand how you can believe that the reduction in overall taxation on property you calculate is associated with a fall in value. If you believe your own figures, you'd be best off keeping quiet about all this, and hoping for a mansion tax sooner rather than later. |