seems unlikely to me, do have any proof?
Living rooms have shrunk?
- Thread starter pete50
- Start date
seems unlikely to me, do have any proof?
Sponsored Links
Only if its needed.
Land must be needed as we have a housing shortage.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
proof of what?
Sponsored Links
Are you referring to production possibility frontier.....
It requires the assumption that resources are fixed.
I cant get how using such a concept is of any value when it is planning that distorts availability of land.
Certainly I can agree with that, and I can see the concept of LVT helping.
However changes to taxation wont solve land availability, the planning policy has a big impact and as I said before it would need drastic reform.
Im not trying to be clever.
Im pointing out that happiness isnt easy to measure.
It isnt very helpful to a discussion to say Im making a fool of myself because I offer a contrasting view.
This thread mentions often that LVT can replace other taxes it need not be an extra burden. Denmark though has one of the highest income and corporation tax rates in the world.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Googled that. Well done. Its useful to understand what causes shifts in the PPF.
Does planning create land? Planning is a policy issue its not a market good. Have you read the books and reports I linked to.
Notch7 vs every sane economist including Thatchers favourite
Weekend is here.
Its interesting that the advocates for LVT dont want to give any indication of what a LVT amount might be.
I realise that it is not straightforward, but what politicians and the public will want to know is how much.
Let me check that.
Let's suppose a multi-millionaire retired plumber has a house with four acres of garden, within the residential district of a town. Thanks to the generous way Council Tax has been constructed to favour the wealthy, he pays no more than the owners of a good-sized houses in his district with modest gardens.
Let's suppose LVT is introduced, and his large amount of land, which has a high value, in the town attracts a substantial tax bill.
He can choose to keep it, and help the community by paying a large amount of tax; or he can choose to sell all or part of it. Since it is within a town, it is probable that quite a number of extra houses will be built.
Here's an easy question (for anybody except notch)
Did the tax change alter land availability?
And a second easy question, just for notch.
Did the availability of land, in the residential district inside a town's boundaries, require a change in planning law?
That is not true.
I'm sure you read the earlier documents, and my post, postulating that it could gather the same amount of revenue that Council Tax does, on domestic property, in order to replace that tax.
It might also be set to gather the same amount of revenue that UBR collects from commercial and industrial property, if Parliament decided to replace that.
It might also be set at a rate that collects the same amount as Stamp Duty does, if Parliament decided to replace that as well.
The documents that were provided to you earlier not only showed those suggestions, they even showed the percentage rates that would provide the revenue required.
I don't know why you choose to pretend that this information has not been offered to you.
So?
The argument for LVT does not hold without planning reforms. The 2 cannot be separated.
Planning may not be a market good. LVT cant be introduced without planning reform.....both political hot potatoes.
Just as well.
Nonsense.
Sponsored Links
