Good time to bug your MP

[Robinho]

How could that possibly not permeate through to the property renter? That's like saying a transaction tax on the banks would not be passed on to the customer?

Are you really going to argue with Adam Smith?

Depending on the supply demand curve of a commodity the taxation comes out of the consumer or the producer in different proportions. As land has a perfectly inelastic supply it all comes out of the producer (landlord).

The only increase that would occur would be from the abolition of other taxes and the increased spending power of consumers. But as i'd probably see a net tax break i'd be looking at moving to a bigger flat.

[sasguru]

Are you really going to argue with Adam Smith?
.

Ah who could argue with God?

[sasguru]

I just lolled, really. If your landlord put up your rent by a factor of 7 in order to pay the new tax, you would be straight back to the mansion a grateful nation provided you.

FTFY.

[sasguru]

The great man has gone silent. Maybe he's developing another brilliant economic theory.
Or wondering whether to have a doner or shish on his lonely way back to his bedsit.

[Robinho]

Sushi tonight actually.

[OwlHoot]

Are you really going to argue with Adam Smith?

Depending on the supply demand curve of a commodity the taxation comes out of the consumer or the producer in different proportions. As land has a perfectly inelastic supply it all comes out of the producer (landlord).

The only increase that would occur would be from the abolition of other taxes and the increased spending power of consumers. But as i'd probably see a net tax break i'd be looking at moving to a bigger flat.

Given that practically everyone wants or needs the largest space they can afford, and property supply is inelastic (as you say yourself), if consumers had more spending power then property prices would rise and landlords could increase rents until equilibrium was restored.

You're making the classic mistake of assuming you can change one thing and not have other things change to compensate.

So sadly, you'd still be stuck in your bedsit, indirectly paying as much tax as ever and probably enriching your landlord even more.

[tractor]

...

Given that practically everyone wants or needs the largest space they can afford, and property supply is inelastic (as you say yourself), if consumers had more spending power then property prices would rise and landlords could increase rents until equilibrium was restored.

You're making the classic mistake of assuming you can change one thing and not have other things change to compensate.

So sadly, you'd still be stuck in your bedsit, indirectly paying as much tax as ever and probably enriching your landlord even more.

And there would be an even bigger race to build the highest buildings than there is now.

Pension companies (550,000 acres, 2010) would be taxed out of existence with the annual cost paid out of pensioners pockets.

[Robinho]

Given that practically everyone wants or needs the largest space they can afford, and property supply is inelastic (as you say yourself), if consumers had more spending power then property prices would rise and landlords could increase rents until equilibrium was restored.

You're making the classic mistake of assuming you can change one thing and not have other things change to compensate.

So sadly, you'd still be stuck in your bedsit, indirectly paying as much tax as ever and probably enriching your landlord even more.

Yes, i am well aware of that phenomena and i explicitly addressed it in my post. I am utterly staggered that you failed to pick up on that.

"The only increase that would occur would be from the abolition of other taxes and the increased spending power of consumers. But as i'd probably see a net tax break i'd be looking at moving to a bigger flat."

[sasguru]

So sadly, you'd still be stuck in your bedsit, indirectly paying as much tax as ever and probably enriching your landlord even more.

Maybe all brilliant economists pay rent, rather than own their properties.
AtW certainly does and he's another brilliant economist, second only to Robby.

[Robinho]

And there would be an even bigger race to build the highest buildings than there is now.

Pension companies (550,000 acres, 2010) would be taxed out of existence with the annual cost paid out of pensioners pockets.

Again probably not because the decision to build a tall building or not is already based upon the value of the land. Whether that land cost is measured in purchase cost or rental cost it still produces the same result.