Remove the word "income": it's all tax payers, from income to VAT to road tax. It all goes in one pot.

The UK could desperately do with some land taxation, but it's hardly reasonable to say that "income tax payers are at breaking point". It's the people on low incomes that are closer to breaking.

Besides, since Brexit, nobody cares about the deficit or credit rating. We can just debt-fund everything!

The UK does have land taxation, but it only happens at the point of sale - we have very high 'stamp duty' (sales tax on houses), but no yearly land tax. The net difference in my opinion is that it reduces liquidity on houses and the burden falls more heavily on people who move around more.

At the same time, Crossrail removed land prices (and thus house prices) in other areas.

Because workers can now use Crossrail to live farther from the city centre (along Crossrail route), thus reducing the price of other houses in the city (which are not along Crossrail route).

Honestly, I think Crossrail is one of the most efficient spends of tax, beneficial for both poor and rich people.

Also note that the UK has progressive taxation, so it was actually rich people who paid for Crossrail.

> Also note that the UK has progressive taxation, so it was actually rich people who paid for Crossrail.

You're using the definition of rich that is "high paid"

I uses the definition of rich that is "high wealth"

High wealth people don't have 'income', they have 'further wealth acquistion' which is normally structured to be tax free.

Even if that were true, how is it relevant? The point being made is that many, or maybe most, people with high income do not have high wealth.

It was my response to the original statement that rich landowners do not pay taxes, but benefit from Crossrail, thus Crossrail is "rob from the poor to give to the rich".

My objection to that statement is that rich people also pay taxes.

Nowhere near as much - especially when it comes to accommodation.

To pay a £1500pcm rent on a modest house in outer London while commuting to work, I would have to earn about £60k more than someone who owns it outright and lives off dividends with the same disposable income, and therefore I’d be paying £25k more in taxes.

On top of that the owner would see their wealth increasing at a further £50k a year, which would require even more income to match.

In the UK income is taxed at 30-75% (including NI, income tax, student loans, and child tax). Capital gains is 18%-28%.

I am in no position to judge whether UK taxation is fair and reasonable, but will the increase in property value result in increased property tax collections over the following decades? That is one way the beneficiaries will contribute to the expenses.

Most urban transit systems are publicly subsidized in order to keep down the cost to riders, which is of most benefit to the less well-off. Even people who do not live or travel in a big city benefit from the economic activity and revenue they generate. Public transport, if implemented reasonably efficiently, can justifiably be called an investment.

If you own your home, you only pay tax ("stamp duty") when you sell it - there isn't a land value tax or similar. There's also a local council tax based on property value, but that has a cap.

Not even that -- you pay tax when you buy the home.

Buy a house for £300k with a 270k mortgage, pay £5k stamp. Crossrail increases it to £600k. Sell the house, repay mortgage, buy new house elsewhere for £300k, pay £5k stamp, and you've suddenly changed your £35k into £325k.

I thought I heard that Crossrail was being funded by value capture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_capture

the expensive bit is the tunnel and stations under central london where there aren't any houses

Maybe so, but that cannot be separated from the project as a whole, as there is no point to it if it did not go there.

I'm an income tax payer in the UK and don't mind a reasonable percentage of that going to infrastructure. I've suffered being stuffed sardine style into the central line often enough to think Crossrail makes sense. Also with interest rates close to zero it makes financial sense for the government to borrow to build this sort of stuff. (The interest rate on 15 year bonds is 0.86% per year currently).

That said I can see the argument for a property improvement tax but it would be messy to figure out - London projects effect huge swathes of property in differing ways.

Those who benefit most from Crossrail will be those who will ride it every day. Increased property values around the route is just the visible effect of the benefit of being able to ride it.

Secondary benefits will also fall on riders of other lines and street transportation that become less congested by riders diverted to the new Crossrail route.

You know that taxation from London supports the regions along with EU money which is ironic considering that areas that are net beneficiaries from the EU (and have less immigrants) voted leave.

> Income tax payers have had enough and don't want to pay for infrastructure that benefits others

Had enough? What does that mean exactly?

The people who will benefit from crossrail the most are the main income tax payers who go to work every day on the tube. Salaries in London are 2-3x higher than outside and income tax gets disproportionately higher the more you earn.

Can you imagine if the tube was never built because it would benefit rich landowners in London more than other people?

Large parts of the Tube and UK rail network were built privately before the 20th century. Most of them lost money and consolidated before nationalisation.

Quite. The metropolitan railway was funded buy buying cheap land, building rail to it, then profiting from the increase in that value.

That no longer happens.

I can imagine if rich landowners in London had to pay for the society that gives their assets value.

if you bother to look at the funding you'll see something like 40% comes from increased business rates in the areas expected to benefit, plus loans which will be repaid from ticket revenues from the new line

> If the price increases -- the portion solely due to crossrail -- was taxed at 42% like income,

Not 42%, but most properties will attract capital gains tax when sold.

You only pay CGT on a house if it's not your main residence - that is, if it's an investment rather than a home. There certainly are plenty of landlords in London, but i suspect that in the areas where Crossrail is increasing prices, it's mostly homeowners.

Won't they be paying Stamp Duty?

You pay stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on the purchase of land or property, not sale.

But for every sale there is going to be a purchaser so the tax is going to get paid whether it is the seller or purchaser paying.

Sure, but arguably thats penalising the wrong party. Also depends on who purchases, if you're a first time buyer you get significantly reduced stamp duty for example.