Good time to bug your MP

[Robinho]

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

Not really sure what you're trying to say.

[sasguru]

Not really sure what you're trying to say.

That you're a rather thick, blow-hard who is in reality a bit of a loser since you can't even get on the housing ladder?
Oh sorry you mean Scoboos?

[OwlHoot]

Yes you see in this passage i am highlighting ...

Arguing with you is like trying to wrestle a greased hog, and not in a constructive way - You didn't highlight any passage in your post.

I pointed out that any extra spending power (which you _obviously_ assumed would be discretionary, as must have been clear to anyone reading your post) would be absorbed by higher rents, so everyone would be back where they started.

So answer one thing - Why do you think you would be better off, more so than the majority presumably, enough to move into a larger flat?

[Robinho]

Ok i shall annotate the exact quote to make it crystal clear

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 landlord is taking the tax hit of the LVT and not the tenant

The only increase (in rent) that would occur would be from the abolition of other taxes and the increased spending power of consumers(the tenant). But as i'd probably see a net tax break (ie the amount i save from no income tax etc vs the amount i'd now be paying in LVT via my LL based on the size of the house i have) i'd be looking at moving to a bigger flat.

Some people who would be getting a net tax increase might want to move into a smaller or less central property.

[Robinho]

Wow, lost amongst the mountain of angered disbelief spewing forth from SAS et al i do believe we missed this bright spark....

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

[sasguru]

... angered disbelief...

Astonished amazement at one man's stupidity, more like.
Now toddle off to your bedsit, little man, and don't leave the landlord's curtains too crusty.
You have a responsibility to your economic betters you know.

[Mich the Tester]

I've thought about it and I think Rob's idea is bwilliant. If we have a land tax then it's my job to make the most pwofitable use of my land, so instead of having a house and a garden, which are unnecessary luxuries, I'll build a little nuclear power station on my land and live somewhere else off the profits. Who cares what the neighbours think?

Oh, and maybe I'll sell off my relatives' farmland and turn the land over to building golf courses, which is a big growth area in NL now thanks to the ageing population and the baby boomer farties who think golf is really flash and Dallas-like. Sod all that milk and cheese from the cows, the poor can starve as they deserve!

[doodab]

By my calculation a tax on spouting bollocks would leave us with a small net surplus.

[Mich the Tester]

By my calculation a tax on spouting bollocks would leave us with a small net surplus.

No, bad idea; dumb feckwits already have to use Wonga to pay their council tax; this idea would lead to a whole new debt crisis.

[Robinho]

So after about 10 pages of myself debunking all kinds of drivel is anyone going to concede there's merit to the idea?