Living rooms have shrunk?
- Thread starter pete50
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Brigadier, LVT pretty well has that in it. If someone cannot make land viable because it is poor land, then the land value drops, as few or no one wants it. Bog, marsh, etc, will be worth near zero. So you can own a bog but will make no money from it and you pay a few quid a year in LVT. It is up to the community to assess if this land is productive and take this marginal land into public ownership to leave natural - national parks, etc. In Feudal times no one owned land. The manor would give land to those who could work it productively. As soon as the land was not productive, they took it back to be common or title given to someone who could productively use the land.
Last edited:
I presume a land value tax, suffers from the same problem as business rates and council tax: it relies on accurate valuation.
Land values go up and down all the time, it is used as an investment and traded as such, so supply / demand dictate current value.
Many pension pots have land in them as an investment, so I imagine LVT would reduce peoples pension value.
Does inheritance tax not transfer assets of wealthy people to the state at each change of generation?
Land values go up and down all the time, it is used as an investment and traded as such, so supply / demand dictate current value.
Many pension pots have land in them as an investment, so I imagine LVT would reduce peoples pension value.
Does inheritance tax not transfer assets of wealthy people to the state at each change of generation?
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Well explained.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
No surprise there are lots of relief for land owners and farmers under IHT.
All taxes suffer from being set at the appropriate level. lVT is the least distortionary of taxes.
Many pension pots have diversified investment so they may gain elsewhere from LVT.
Notch7, Valuing land is easy, estate agents do it all the time. In Australia the land values are online. Land Value Tax takes speculations (misconstrued as investment) out of the land equation.
We had a world-wide crash in 2008. What went wrong?
Debt after debt was poured into land. Because land kept increasing in value, so it was a safe bet to lend against. Speculators, big and small raced into land (property). The land matket toppled and took the rest down. In the run up to the 1929 crash land values soured as well. Land is unique. It is not a capital item like car or dishwasher. You can take cheap washing machines from Newcastle to London, but you cannot take cheap land. It is a location.
The business cycle follows the land cycle. The land cycle is approx 18 years (upset by wars and natural disasters). Halt the land cycle and we have economic stability. Something Martin Wolf of the FT advocates, as does Stigliz, etc.
How do you halt the land cycle?
You have to take unique land out of the sights of speculators. This is done by implementing Land Value Tax, on all land. A simple tax shift. LVT replaces Council Tax and can remove income tax (a penalty on production) if set high enough. Enterprise will flourish, the free market will operate as it should with economic stability. Land Value Tax is zero tax on the buildings. HMG need not greatly interfere with the economy as it will be self regulating. LVT cannot be avoided as land cannot be taken offshore.
John McDonnell wants to replace Council Tax with LVT. He also is to promote the formation of co-ops - the workers owning the companies operating in the free market with profits returning to them. John Lewis is a co-op employing 90,000 people. He is the only finance man to speak any sense in my lifetime. Labour had LVT in their manifesto in 1945, but never implemented it. They had it in the 1930s but the Tories in the coalition scuppered it. Liberals have had in their sight for along time, The Greens firmly in their sights. Even some Tories are for it, Boles comes to mind. But the Tories (buffoon Johnson) put out lies in the last election saying LVT was a garden tax - which is complete tripe. The Tories tax bedrooms.
We had a world-wide crash in 2008. What went wrong?
Debt after debt was poured into land. Because land kept increasing in value, so it was a safe bet to lend against. Speculators, big and small raced into land (property). The land matket toppled and took the rest down. In the run up to the 1929 crash land values soured as well. Land is unique. It is not a capital item like car or dishwasher. You can take cheap washing machines from Newcastle to London, but you cannot take cheap land. It is a location.
The business cycle follows the land cycle. The land cycle is approx 18 years (upset by wars and natural disasters). Halt the land cycle and we have economic stability. Something Martin Wolf of the FT advocates, as does Stigliz, etc.
How do you halt the land cycle?
You have to take unique land out of the sights of speculators. This is done by implementing Land Value Tax, on all land. A simple tax shift. LVT replaces Council Tax and can remove income tax (a penalty on production) if set high enough. Enterprise will flourish, the free market will operate as it should with economic stability. Land Value Tax is zero tax on the buildings. HMG need not greatly interfere with the economy as it will be self regulating. LVT cannot be avoided as land cannot be taken offshore.
John McDonnell wants to replace Council Tax with LVT. He also is to promote the formation of co-ops - the workers owning the companies operating in the free market with profits returning to them. John Lewis is a co-op employing 90,000 people. He is the only finance man to speak any sense in my lifetime. Labour had LVT in their manifesto in 1945, but never implemented it. They had it in the 1930s but the Tories in the coalition scuppered it. Liberals have had in their sight for along time, The Greens firmly in their sights. Even some Tories are for it, Boles comes to mind. But the Tories (buffoon Johnson) put out lies in the last election saying LVT was a garden tax - which is complete tripe. The Tories tax bedrooms.
Last edited:
hard-work -thanks for the information. Its not concept I know anything about.
Does it mean that LVT is a system that is seen as taking from the rich to give to the poor?........
It was bitterly attacked during the last General Election campaign by such pillars of honesty as the Daily Express and the Wail.
Perhaps because it was part of the Labour manifesto.
Project Tory Fear, obv.
When was the last month they weren't running an anti-Labour scare story?
Perhaps because it was part of the Labour manifesto.
Project Tory Fear, obv.
When was the last month they weren't running an anti-Labour scare story?
I think it would depend on the development, area and overall size of the house but I guess you could suggest that living rooms have shrunk 
Notch7, LVT takes from no one and gives to no one, once in place and running. LVT when implemented rewards the productive to eliminate income tax.
LVT reclaims commonly created wealth, to use for common services. It is not really a tax, that is a misnomer. A shopkeeper collects VAT when selling goods, he gives all that to HMG, as he is just the intermediate collector. LVT is similar; the landowner becomes the intermediate collector.
With LVT, what we create we use for us. What you earn, you keep.
LVT will not take money from the richest of the nation's bank accounts. It will stop them legally stealing commonly created wealth - prevent their banks accounts from filling from unearned income. The productive will be rewarded; the financial parasite's gravy train will be derailed.
LVT reclaims commonly created wealth, to use for common services. It is not really a tax, that is a misnomer. A shopkeeper collects VAT when selling goods, he gives all that to HMG, as he is just the intermediate collector. LVT is similar; the landowner becomes the intermediate collector.
With LVT, what we create we use for us. What you earn, you keep.
LVT will not take money from the richest of the nation's bank accounts. It will stop them legally stealing commonly created wealth - prevent their banks accounts from filling from unearned income. The productive will be rewarded; the financial parasite's gravy train will be derailed.
Last edited:
We have been conditioned out of focussing on land for about 110 years - it has been taken off the radar for self-interest reasons. They even wrote it out of economics - we went from classical economics to neo-classical which phases out the importance of land, treating land as a capital item.
Look at Laurie Macfarlane again (understand what he is saying) and of course Fred Harrison. Fred Harrison is prolific on Youtube - a great presenter. Fred has written many books on land and the injustices around it. Ricardo's Law by Fred is good. Easy to grasp. Fred identified the 18 year Land Cycle, which leads the business cycle - why we have boom-busts. Fred (he worked for the USSR to de-communise their system) was also one of the group of western economists who sent a letter to Yelsin to keep land in Russia state owned and leased out (as in Hong Kong), so the wealth soaked into land is used for state revenue not income tax. He ignored them then gangster capitalism emerged there.
The biggest land groups are in the USA (Georgist groups).
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Being facetious again.
It's taking from the unproductive to reward the productive entrepreneur. Or you have a better way to grow the economy without resort to immigration. I thought you would like that.
Unless you see yourself as a temporarily embarrassed land owner why are you objecting
By the way this doesn't take from anyone, the land owners can avoid LVT, just sell their land to someone who wishes to put it to productive use.
Sponsored Links
