Good time to bug your MP

[OwlHoot]

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."

and I'm utterly staggered you still don't seem to see the implications of "everyone having more spending power" and of assuming that you/they would all be able to move into larger properties, especially after I carefully explained why in the circs that would not be the case.

[tractor]

....

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.

Except that your proposal would skew it so that it was far more profiable by a factor of the number of stories to build higher and get more bang for your buck. Developers and property operators who are often not the land owners would pay no tax whilst the landowner would then pay x floors times tax rate less tax than single or fewer storey developments so whilst it is already, it would not remain so under your model.

And the pension funds?

[Robinho]

and I'm utterly staggered you still don't seem to see the implications of "everyone having more spending power" and of assuming that you/they would all be able to move into larger properties, especially after I carefully explained why in the circs that would not be the case.

I have never suggested this.

[OwlHoot]

I have never suggested this.

"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."

To refresh your memory, I've highlighted the relevant phrases

HTH

[Robinho]

Yes you see in this passage i am highlighting that rental prices would go up because people had more spending power from less taxation of income etc.

As you can see, what you are trying to tell me is what i have been saying all along.

[Robinho]

Except that your proposal would skew it so that it was far more profiable by a factor of the number of stories to build higher and get more bang for your buck. Developers and property operators who are often not the land owners would pay no tax whilst the landowner would then pay x floors times tax rate less tax than single or fewer storey developments so whilst it is already, it would not remain so under your model.

The decision to build a flat or a house is already based upon the same thing today. Land in the square mile is expensive, that's why they have skyscrapers there. Land in the country is cheap which is why they have 2 storey houses.

That isn't going to change because land is being part rented as supposed to being purchased outright.

[Scoobos]

In spite of how you want to dress it we are all just fixed term employees with essentially zero employment rights. I don't see why we should be able to pay less tax.

Resurrecting an old post sure, but don't tar us all with your brush. The same brush that thinks its acceptable to contract and fleece the customer when there's no work left for you to do.

[sasguru]

The decision to build a flat or a house is already based upon the same thing today. Land in the square mile is expensive, that's why they have skyscrapers there. Land in the country is cheap which is why they have 2 storey houses.

That isn't going to change because land is being part rented as supposed to being purchased outright.

So when are you going to buy your own property, oh great ekonomiks/property/land guru?
I mean whatever your high-falutin ideas, it's not very smart to enrich some landlord, like me, no?

[benji1]

To refresh your memory, I've highlighted the relevant phrases

HTH

Your are right insofar that rents would rise, so would LVT, other taxes decrease/ citizen's income increases.

A positive feedback.

But on the other hand, more property would be brought into efficient use turning that spiral back the other way. There are currently 1 million empty homes, 25 million empty spare rooms, 66,000 hectares of brownfield in England, empty shops and offices that could be used as residential homes, 470,000, second homes 270,000. Plus homes over shops that may be empty but are not registered for Council Tax so don't show up in the stats. A massive downward pressure on rents.

Although rents as set by affordability, it peoples disposable incomes were to increase significantly, we could not expect to see all that to be absorbed. If that were the case we'd all have the same standard of living we have 100 years ago.

No, we'd expect that extra income to be divided. At some point there would be equilibrium, between higher rents, higher LVT, higher discretionary income.

That's exactly the same factors we have now. So, 100% for sure people would be much better of if we have LVT. Rents would be higher, but we'd be paying much less in tax.

[Scoobos]

The decision to build a flat or a house is already based upon the same thing today. Land in the square mile is expensive, that's why they have skyscrapers there. Land in the country is cheap which is why they have 2 storey houses.

Square Mile -> War damage, high demand and rebuild
Rural Houses -> no war damage, old buildings, low demand as little to no economy == cheaper prices.

HTH