Would that be just after Dutch cap or Dutch courage?
Last edited:
Living rooms have shrunk?
- Thread starter pete50
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Yes but that comparison is one made comparing 2 theoretical situations after instigating LVT.
What I am saying is, if you want to promote a new tax, then the reality is that people will compare the current situation with the proposed situation.
So where does the rate of land value tax come from?
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
It would have to be worked out. Taxes are changed on a regular basis. Look at the new VED rules.
We have GIS , land registers so we have most of the data we need. It would be a lot easier to work out than a free trade deal.
All taxes distort economic activity, LVT is the least distortionary. I'd rather people incomes are taxed less.
Sponsored Links
Income is not the same no matter where you live.
An author who works alone can move to the side of a Welsh hillside and next to nothing.......so that is true right now, is it not?
So how does a LVT make a difference to somebody renting a flat?
A landlord owns 1,000 properties so he owns a fair bit of land. He gets taxed on the land. So he passes his tax cost onto the tenant by charging enough rent to cover the tax plus some profit. Market forces prevail, so all landlords in one locality will be on say band 'S', which will thus determine rental for that area.
The LVT doesnt make the land more productive.......it this example distorts the rental market.
A landlord owns 1,000 properties so he owns a fair bit of land. He gets taxed on the land. So he passes his tax cost onto the tenant by charging enough rent to cover the tax plus some profit. Market forces prevail, so all landlords in one locality will be on say band 'S', which will thus determine rental for that area.
The LVT doesnt make the land more productive.......it this example distorts the rental market.
The example of the author I gave would be that his income would be the same no matter where he lived.
Passes it onto the tenant. That old chestnut. Currently a landlord charges the maximum rent the market will allow. He cannot pass on the LVT charge as he would up the rent and then the tenant moves out as other properties are cheaper, forcing him to lower the rent. Market forces take over. To get a higher rent the landlord will have to pay to raise the standard of fitments in the accommodation. Standards are raised. Your fears are put to rest.
That sounds like an opinion, rather than a fact.
Call me cynical, but I reckon whatever the system, the haves will pretty much always still be so.
My apologies, my 2 points, income not being the same and your example of an author were 2 separate points not part of the same.
These days an author, website designer, it specialist can live almost anywhere; City centre or Welsh hills. LVT will not alter that, it is a choice available now.
As approx two thirds of the value of a homes in the UK is the land value (more like 95% in parts of London), land is very important - that is abundantly clear. In the age of Internet activity, access to land is very important. Currently we are all rammed into urban areas while the countryside the preserve of mainly the rich. It has been explained many times how LVT makes land productive. Read back on the thread.
80% of GDP maybe financial services but 65 million need land an access to land. The 20% of GDP needs land and lots of it as it is land hungry.
Im struggling to see how that works.
Under a LVT, a valuation of land takes place. If I understand correctly land value is determined by its amenity......which you would argue hasnt been generated by the land owner, but his land value has been increased by production.
So if I rent a flat near a main line train station, that would be valued more than 1 further away. So all of the properties in the locality would be in a similar high value tax band. The properties would be owned by different landlords but they all have 1 common link: the LVT band.
So how would other properties be cheaper? Market forces would keep them the same. No different to how it is now.
If LVT goes up, so do tenant rents.
Actually it is the overall service industry which is close to 80%, and financial services contribute less than 10% (and has only 3% of the job market).
Thus given that manufacturing is such a small percentage of our economy (and we have very few resources), Napoleon was indeed right!
It is a choice available now, but the choice will be more appealing with LVT. The point that the person living remote, paying less LVT, is paying for what he receives in public services - very little to the city dweller, who pays more (elements of the Poll Tax). If our rigged planning system is put right, more people will live amongst nature. Currently we are all rammed into tight urban areas. Look at the stats I posted earlier in the thread.
The 1947 T&C Planning act prevents us from building on the countryside, even though much of it is being paid to remain idle by taxpayers money. A countryside that has lost its population at an alarming rate over the past 30 years. The population of the UK is forced into tight urban pockets paying extortionate prices for land, and subsequently houses. Their taxes are used to reinforce this bizarre situation by paying to:
- Keep land unused to maintain an artificial land shortage inflating house prices;
- House large sections of the population unnecessarily in public funded housing, when the private sector could provide;
- Overwhelmingly control where the population lives.
Sponsored Links
