Yes, the rental value of the is the best way of assessing LVT.
Last edited:
Living rooms have shrunk?
- Thread starter pete50
- Start date
Sponsored Links
If anyone understand LVT and its amazing economic ripple effect, they are not stupid. If they oppose it then they are doing it for some sort of vested interest reasons. Only the landowners of vast swathes of land would have their unearned income cut out. 99% of us would gain substantially.Are you trying to suggest the LVT is a lie, but if you repeat it enough everybody will believe it?
Or are you trying to say LVT is a utopian tax and anybody that doesnt agree is therefore stupid?
If you think tbe correct answer is 2, then perhaps if you want people to buy into believing it, you might want to stop calling them stupid.
The difference between a highway robber and a freeloader is that the freeloader does not have to draw a gun to take what belongs to others.
Last edited:
They cannot own most of the land as 0.66% of population own 70% of it. Also the wealth of that land is not going into private pockets, it is being returned for the pubic good.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
It could be. HMG owns land. What would be the value of that land on the open market? Whatever it is the HMG dept pays the LVT levy. Many HMG depts make money. Some HMG owned land could be exempt of LVT like for military training, etc, and cut out the accountancy costs of assessment collection, etc, in a robbing Peter to pay Paul manner.
Last edited:
The side of the ToryParty that pushes enterprise and industry do look at LVT favourably. Nick Boles comes to mind. A Tory, Robert Hughes, is talking favourably of LVT here. A good video.LMAO @ the neoliberals pushing the case for lvt.
I was once approached to be one of the talking heads on one of these videos.
Last edited:
Do you have anything to back that up?
How would LVT replace other taxes.
Have any studies been done to prove LVT would create enough revenue?
Thats not entirely true.
Private enterprise generates its own economic activity in an area.
House builders usually have to build the road structure to new housing estates. Planning laws often mean housing building has to include mixed development like retail, light industrial etc.
Private enterprise builds businesses that collectively generate economic activity in an area. You are suggesting landowners simply get it for free. Not true.
Also the community infrastructure levy means housebuilders pay towards infrastructure.
LVT would replace Council Tax for a start. Increase the LVT levy and income tax can be eliminated, Capital gains tax, inheritance tax, etc, etc. Look at at other countries that tax land, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Denmark, Estonia, etc. The Danish Ground Tax government of the late 1950s/early 1960s is a great study.
A guy named Mark Wadsworth, a commercial accountant, assessed that income tax can be removed in the UK if LVT was implemented on all land. Very interesting. All the points brought up by those not fully aware of LVT he answers:
http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/p/index.html
Certainly LVT will be massively distortionary.
Economic activity will be entirely driven by land valuation and planning laws.
Landowners do get the wealth accumulated in their land for free. Some landowners may dabble in enterprise and contribute to the economic growth of an area, but the wealth in the land they get for free. This explains it, it was posted many, many pages back.
That has some merit, but what about this scenario:
Somebody works hard all his life, paying his taxes. He upgrades his house until his forever house is a nice size in a large garden.
He has paid off his mortgage.
LVT is introduced. Suddenly he know longer 'owns' his own house, he has to pay rent (you can call it Land Value Tax). He has to pay it every year until he dies.
So LVT effectively means state ownership of every piece of land in the country. You can never be free of paying tax no matter how long you live.
It has been explained to you how LVT would not be distortionary. Look at the videos posted. You clearly have not been looking at them.
Under full LVT, economic activity will be driven by enterprise and the productive. Land is largely taken out of the equation.
Last edited:
If LVT is introduced of course he will still own his house and land. LVT is a only a tax shift, not a change in ownership.
Ah the Poor Widow bogey, as Winston Churchill called it (he was a fan of LVT). Mark Wadsworth answers that well. Look:
http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-poor-widow-bogey.html
Last edited:
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
He currently pays council tax for the rest of his life. Swings and roundabouts in this scenario.
Sponsored Links
