Living rooms have shrunk?

[EFLImpudence]

Notch, have you watched the videos?

 

[SirGalahad]

So no error in my logic.

Greater transport links = higher LVT = higher costs to landlord = higher rental cost.

Same as exists now?

Which proves the point the tax would not be passed onto tenants after a period of adjustment.

When considering any tax, economists focus on how it affects decision-making such as Income Tax reduces the incentive to work; Corporation Tax reduces the incentive to invest; Stamp Duty deters some house sales. Land Value Tax does not distort decision making. There is no supply response. Extra land is not magically introduced.

 

[SirGalahad]

Notch, have you watched the videos?

Comrade Notch7 has not or hasn't understood them. These Marxists are a truculent bunch.

 

[Brigadier]

It's a fact if you read up on economics. Look at lump sum taxes. If you think its an opinion can you site me economic articles to the contrary. I am happy to increase my knowledge.

I'm asking you questions, not trying to Willy-wave citing articles.
For starters, when I asked you where the LVT rates would come from, you said that "they'd have to be worked out".
There's a chunk of uncertainty / "unfairness" right there.
Then there was the bit about using GIS and the like (to guess the LVT rates). Again, in this"connected world", wouldn't this be a. finger in the air, and b. redundant, as the "value" could be utterly unrelated to the physical location itself?

 

[hard-work]

You seem to be stuck in your ideology. Productive use of the land, we don't care what you build on it. Your focusing on economic activity which can be anything be a flat, shop etc as long as the lVT is paid.

Currently you get taxed on the improvement to the property how anti capitalist is that? The land remains the same.

LVT cares not a hoot about:

• Who owns the land;
• What is built on on the land;
• What type of business is on the land;
• How much money is made from the land;
• How big the landowners bank account is;
• How big the tenants bank account is
• How big the landowners income is;
• How big the tenants income is;
• If the buildings are protected on the land;

LVT only cares about the land's value.

 

[ellal]

I did know that, I slipped. Such a few people are generating so much of the wealth a Citizens Dividend is being proposed (a monthly wage packet given by the state if you work or do not work). But the housing cost have to be dropped, and LVT does that.

I don't think that would work as there would always be loopholes for those who could afford to find them, and the bulk would be paid by those who managed to get a reasonably nice place to live through a lifetime of work!

We could of course simply reverse the policy of preventing councils building social housing.

Development is often run on a 1/3 basis. 1/3 land cost, 1/3 build cost, and 1/3 profit.

There's plenty of public land available, and if councils were allowed to build at a not for profit rate then there's 66% of the cost of building affordable social housing for rent gone in a jiffy. And the assets stay in public ownership for future generations.

Won't happen of course because whatever political party comes to power is 'in hoc' to some rather powerful 'vested interests'!

 

[Notch7]

LVT cares not a hoot about:

• Who owns the land;
• What is built on on the land;
• What type of business is on the land;
• How much money is made from the land;
• How big the landowners bank account is;
• How big the tenants bank account is
• How big the landowners income is;
• How big the tenants income is;
• If the buildings are protected on the land;

LVT only cares about the land's value.

And if the land value is, the LVT will be high and the rent will be high.

 

[EFLImpudence]

For those who don't understand,

look at it like the rates, instead of the house having a rateable value, the land has, by area.

You have a nice big house so your rates will be £X, which will be less than the present 2£X. Next door is an empty plot the same size; this will have the same amount to pay, £X, infinitely greater than the present nothing. The Council gets the same as before, 2£X.

The neighbour can keep paying £X every year with no income if he wants or he can do something with the land to raise enough to pay and presumably get some profit or sell the plot to someone who will.

This is simplified with only two plots but you will see how it works.

 

[Notch7]

We could of course simply reverse the policy of preventing councils building social housing.

My understanding of the housing msrket is that the housing shortage can not be resolved by developers, their business model relies on profit. Profit means the sale price of a finished house has be at a certain level, so developers wont build more houses at a rate that would lower prices.

The solution does seem to lie with social housing.

 

[EFLImpudence]

With the ridiculous cost of housing, do you not think builders get a profit on the houses they build?

 

[Notch7]

Comrade Notch7 has not or hasn't understood them. These Marxists are a truculent bunch.

I see, a failure to provide a worthwhile answer becomes an Ad hom. Ok

 

[JohnD]

The solution does seem to lie with social housing.

So the sooner we boot out the Tories, the better.

 

[JohnD]

And if the land value is, the LVT will be high and the rent will be high.

And is your guess that it will be higher or lower than is calculated for that same piece of land, with the same homes on it, under the Council Tax system?

For some reason I get the impression that you assume it will always be substantially higher.

 

[SirGalahad]

I'm asking you questions, not trying to Willy-wave citing articles.
For starters, when I asked you where the LVT rates would come from, you said that "they'd have to be worked out".
There's a chunk of uncertainty / "unfairness" right there.
Then there was the bit about using GIS and the like (to guess the LVT rates). Again, in this"connected world", wouldn't this be a. finger in the air, and b. redundant, as the "value" could be utterly unrelated to the physical location itself?

You questioned that LVT being least distortionary was an opinion and not fact without backing it up. So I simply asked for some evidence.

The current situation is unfair so to argue another situation is unfair holds no merit. With LVT there is better use of unused land which is a factor of production.

Your only argument is the rate at which it is set, which I said needs to be calculated. You are asking me at what rate that would be as you need some sort of data to make a decision. Now that's fine and as I mentioned it would need to be calculated. Now you argue that would be a finger in the air and be arbitrary based on what? It also smacks at hypocrisy because as a leaver you made a decision about leaving without all the facts, in fact with less facts than we have for calculating LVT.

It is true that value will only be determined in exchange on the market and we need to remember a simple truth It is not the seller of land that performs the ultimate assessment, but the buyer. That the seller may state a price, it is true, but if no buyer actually wants the land at that price, then it will not sell. So whatever rate we wish to set the LVT can be adjusted and tweaked - like taxes today are adjusted.

 

[SirGalahad]

I see, a failure to provide a worthwhile answer becomes an Ad hom. Ok

Failure to understand an answer is your problem. But please go and research it and come back. I am always happy to update my knowledge.

So being called Comrade Notch7 is an ad hominem attack, well then why do you persist in calling him comrade corbyn? Hypocrisy bites which is the point I am making.