Good time to bug your MP

[speling bee]

sas you're ******* dull.

I'm going to stop humouring you from now on.

I'm sure you'll keep on entertaining us.

[tractor]

[QUOTE=Robinho;1628079]Yes, this is the whole point. You pay for the land value and not the value of the property, this punishes you for not using the land productively.



Well it's not my proposal actually Adam Smith was an early advocate (what a mong) and Henry George really fleshed out the idea.

There are no major obstacles. A lot of the questions i'm being asked could just be applied to any tax in existence today and require only a minor amount of brain power to come to a sensible resolution.



But can you give one serious reason why not?[/QUOTE]

Window Tax, Brick Tax, Hearth Tax, none of them worked. Rates and rates valuation is never fair and you were talking initially about fairness.

How can you possibly force a land owner to make their land more productive in the current economic climate. So the economy takes a nose dive, every landowner becomes bankrupt, the states takes it all over and pays itself tax?

Yeah, that would work.

[sasguru]

sas you're ******* dull.

I'm going to stop humouring you from now on.

I'm deeply hurt.
I'm trying to encourage you and get your genius acknowledged by lesser people and this is all the thanks I get?
I think you should write to George Osborne and Ben Bernanke with your excellent world beating idea.
Yes, the Anglophone world shall be strong again!
Arise Robby, throw off your shackles, you have nothing to lose but your intellectual chains.

[benji1]

One of the key things people have hinted at but you have sensibly steered clear of is how would you value land in the first place? Against what classifications? How would it fit in with planning? How would you revalue land that becomes economically dormant? How would you manage foreign ownership? How would you manage land that had to be confiscated because owners go bankrupt? How often would you revalue? How much would it cost to implement and operate?

What happened to Window Tax, Brick Tax, Hearth Tax? Why do you think most country houses are now owned by National Heritage or other charities? How would you manage charitable ownership?

A LVT is straightforward to assess. Take a like for like property comparison in the lowest price and then highest price parts of the Country and hey presto, you get a site valuation.

There are lots of places in the World that have LVT or similar. It's really not a problem. They still have domestic rates in Northern Ireland remember.

Land that becomes economically dormant is still priced the same. That's the whole point!!! It's the site value. It's also one of the biggest advantages of LTV. Speculation in land prices and land banking will become non existent with a full on LVT.

LVT should be assessed annually against existing planning permission. It would utilise Land Registry data bases cross referenced with property price data bases. It's never been so easy or cheap to asses. A doodle in fact. Tax collection doesn't get any cheaper. Unavoidable too.

Yep, foreigners would certainly have to pay. Their interests are registered at the LR, so no hiding. Land that was forfeited would obviously be put on the open market. But remember with a 100% LVT the value of all land would be zero. You only obtain the title if you can afford the LVT.

LVT is nothing like a Window Tax. Taxing Land produces no economic distortions because the it's value is comes from scarcity, it's supply is fixed. Therefore taxing it does not change the demand either as the price is fixed.

LVT is different to all other taxes in this respect. All other taxes reduce productive activity. Deadweight costs. In the UK they depress the economy by at least 15% GDP. Because owning land in itself is not a productive activity, taxing it produces no deadweight costs. If we were to swap all other taxes for LVT are economy would greatly expand. See here.

A Simple Guide to Land Value Tax - Coalition for Economic Justice

[Mich the Tester]

I expect the 'Dodgy Agent Land Valuing Insultancy' would make a fortune out of both;

a: people who don't want to pay much tax, and so pay DA a back hander to give them a low valuation

and

b: the government who'll pay DA to vastly overvalue land where he hasn't recieved a back hander

In short, a land value tax is a recipe for (even more) corruption.

[tractor]

...

I expect the 'Dodgy Agent Land Valuing Insultancy' would make a fortune out of both;

a: people who don't want to pay much tax, and so pay DA a back hander to give them a low valuation

and

b: the government who'll pay DA to vastly overvalue land where he hasn't recieved a back hander

In short, a land value tax is a recipe for (even more) corruption.

And the armies of newly extinct accountants would be replaced by armies of surveyors and valuers.

[DodgyAgent]

I expect the 'Dodgy Agent Land Valuing Insultancy' would make a fortune out of both;

a: people who don't want to pay much tax, and so pay DA a back hander to give them a low valuation

and

b: the government who'll pay DA to vastly overvalue land where he hasn't recieved a back hander

In short, a land value tax is a recipe for (even more) corruption.

You're hired

[sasguru]

I expect the 'Dodgy Agent Land Valuing Insultancy' would make a fortune out of both;

a: people who don't want to pay much tax, and so pay DA a back hander to give them a low valuation

and

b: the government who'll pay DA to vastly overvalue land where he hasn't recieved a back hander

In short, a land value tax is a recipe for (even more) corruption.

Mich, I'm forced to the conclusion that you're an idiot.
Can you not see the Land Tax is the best thing since sliced bread, economics-wise.
And we should be proud it was discovered by one of our resident CUK ekonomiks jeeniuses - there really is no end to our talents, here on CUK.

[Robinho]

[QUOTE=tractor;1628089]

Yes, this is the whole point. You pay for the land value and not the value of the property, this punishes you for not using the land productively.



Well it's not my proposal actually Adam Smith was an early advocate (what a mong) and Henry George really fleshed out the idea.

There are no major obstacles. A lot of the questions i'm being asked could just be applied to any tax in existence today and require only a minor amount of brain power to come to a sensible resolution.



But can you give one serious reason why not?[/QUOTE]

Window Tax, Brick Tax, Hearth Tax, none of them worked. Rates and rates valuation is never fair and you were talking initially about fairness.

How can you possibly force a land owner to make their land more productive in the current economic climate. So the economy takes a nose dive, every landowner becomes bankrupt, the states takes it all over and pays itself tax?

Yeah, that would work.

Window tax and brick tax are fundamentally different taxes. As the supply of land is static it means people moving out of properties will simply depress the price of that area until equilibrium is found and people move in. If people started making houses out of less bricks, the deand for bricks would fall, and eventually the supply of bricks would fall. That is the difference, one distorts behaviour (humans use less bricks), one doesn't.

All that would really happen is that you would effectively be renting part of your house from the gov if you owned, or if you rented anyway nothing would change. You might say "but everyone would just move into tiny houses and live together to save on tax" but the same logic applies to people who rent or pay a mortgage anyway. I rent, and yes, i could move into a smaller flat and pay less, but i don't want to, i quite like my flat and am happy to pay what it costs. The only change in behaviour would come from the removal of the distortionary tax system that is currently in place but the pricing mechanism would ensure that a similar level of property was utilised if slightly differently.

The rest of your post is nonsense.

[sasguru]

I rent...

Not for long, clearly.
You only need to pick the mansion a grateful country will reward you with.
Maybe you could ask for Chequers?