Does it not?
Land Value Tax would depend on 2 things:
Land valuation
Planning
If the entire tax system revolved around revenue from LVT then almost the entire economy would revolve around those 2 things.
Living rooms have shrunk?
- Thread starter pete50
- Start date
Does it not?
Land Value Tax would depend on 2 things:
Land valuation
Planning
If the entire tax system revolved around revenue from LVT then almost the entire economy would revolve around those 2 things.
Sponsored Links
Very helpful, John Stuart Mill is one of the giants of economics. Every economist knows of him. From someone you may have heard of:
"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains -- and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived."
-Winston Churchill
Last edited:
What do Council Tax and Business Rates depend on?
"If the entire tax system revolved around revenue from Council Tax and Business Rates then almost the entire economy would revolve around those 2 things." But it doesn't.
Why do you think Council Tax and Business Rates are "better" than Land Value Tax?
(btw you have forgotten the most important factor in deciding how much tax is paid under those systems)
If that is the case and the current tax revenue is a zero sum game, then that can only mean 1 thing: LVT must take money from the rich and give to the poor.
Unless LVT is generating its own money?
Sponsored Links
LVT promotes enterprise and the free market, while eliminating financial parasites. The economy would revolve around enterprise.
Last edited:
You still do not get it. LVT prevents wealth from being syphoned off into financial parasites's bank accounts. What you earn, you keep.
The argument being put forward here, by others is the LVT would replace all other taxes, or at least that would be the goal. If so then the economy woukd revolve around planning and land valuation.
Just because I am scrutinising the validity of LVT does not mean I think Council tax / business rates are better. That is one of your favorite dishonest debating techniques. It brings nothing to the discussion.
No. There would pigouvian taxes, like on petrol, alcohol and tobacco. Also charges for resources extraction, use of the electromagnetic spectrum, roads (taxi & bus licence for e.g.), the seas, air above us, etc.
The prime aim of LVT is to:
- Reclaim commonly created wealth to use for common services;
- Leave privately earned wealth in private pockets;
That is not a characteristic of LVT itself.
If the citizens of this country wanted to load all taxation onto income tax, and abolish all others, they could. If they wanted to load it all onto council tax, they could.
Other taxes, such as council tax and business rates, are highly relevant to the discussion, when a proposed new tax would replace them. Can you show that the old taxes are better than the new? The advocates of LVT have repeatedly shown why the consider the new tax is better than the old.
Enterprise takes place to make money.
It doesnt promote the free market.
Heres a scenario:
Someone owns a piece of land, say brownbelt. Idle you would call.
LVT is introduced.
The landowner needs to make a decision, to see if what free market enterprise is possible:
That decision is based on;
1. Rate of LVT
2. Time scale and liklehood of planning.
If he thinks he cant make money, he needs to sell.
How much would a buyer pay? Go back to no 1.
So LVT would entirely determine the market.
LVT seems to base its concept on the belief that land is a vital and necessary factor of production.
I would argue it is not.
In your opinion.
An opinion based on ignorance.
Shown why they consider.....Mmm, the advocates would, wouldnt they?
A rather pointless statement.
You might as well say: It must be right because I say so.
Sponsored Links
