Would a Land/wealth Value Tax help first time buyers and unlock the property market?

A._Badger

mark5 wrote: »

No doubt most ppl would end up paying more!

Cynical, but true. Those who recall their history lessons will remember the 'temporary' nature of income tax.

CLAPTON

Itismehonest wrote: »

I understand the theory I'm just not sure it would actually be terribly effective.
The 10 largest landowners in the UK in 2010 were:
1) Forestry Commission
2) National Trust
3) Defence Estates
4) Pension Funds
5) Utilities
6) Crown Estate
7) RSPB
8) Duke of Buccleuch & Queensberry
9) National Trust for Scotland
10) Duke of Atholl's Trusts

The vast majority of the above either hold charitable status or would require the tax-payer to foot the bill.

If I haven't missed a figure they hold 6,101,007 acres between them - the total acreage of the UK being 60,318,577 acres. I couldn't even begin to guess how much of the remaining acreage would be deducted because it is already developed but I think we may be left with relatively little over by comparison.
That's why I can see that a tax to deter developers from hoarding land could be beneficial but I'm not sure a general land-tax would.
Hope I've explained myself adequately [/QUOTE



indeed so, a land tax probably wouldn't affect them for either better or worse
it realistally can only make a difference where there is alternative uses for land

so if 'brown fill' sites in cities were taxed at the same (relatively high rate) as building land then it would encourage its use for housing;

similarly if developers are sitting on land with planning permission then they will be taxed at the same rate as the land would be if houses had been built

no, not a panacea but maybe a useful tool to make land useage better suited to us all

PasturesNew

CLAPTON wrote: »

Itismehonest wrote: »

... if developers are sitting on land with planning permission then they will be taxed at the same rate as the land would be if houses had been built

...

I guess the alternative is to pay it, put it down as a loss on the books .... and at some future point those losses would be covered by some future houses ... with the house buyers footing the bill. So .... they could actually still do it so long as they had enough cashflow to cover those costs until the future point when they built/sold the houses.

It's virtually impossible to dream up any scheme where the bigger boys actually pay without them having some way of passing it onto the little guy in the end.

CLAPTON

PasturesNew wrote: »

CLAPTON wrote: »

I guess the alternative is to pay it, put it down as a loss on the books .... and at some future point those losses would be covered by some future houses ... with the house buyers footing the bill. So .... they could actually still do it so long as they had enough cashflow to cover those costs until the future point when they built/sold the houses.

It's virtually impossible to dream up any scheme where the bigger boys actually pay without them having some way of passing it onto the little guy in the end.

well, no

firstly most house builders are not cash rich (in spite of all the rubbish talked... look up their annual accounts and how many have gone out of business over the years)

and with competition if they price too highly then they don't sell

julieq

I wouldn't get too exercised over this, it's not going to happen any time soon and it would be politically difficult to encourage back garden developments which this would tend to.

The bigger issue is the scandalous difficulty in obtaining planning permission. Any small group of locals can kick up such a fuss that it becomes almost impossible to build, with the latest wheeze being Village Green status. Ultimately until you stop nimbyism you don't solve the housing shortage.

CLAPTON

julieq wrote: »

I wouldn't get too exercised over this, it's not going to happen any time soon and it would be politically difficult to encourage back garden developments which this would tend to.

The bigger issue is the scandalous difficulty in obtaining planning permission. Any small group of locals can kick up such a fuss that it becomes almost impossible to build, with the latest wheeze being Village Green status. Ultimately until you stop nimbyism you don't solve the housing shortage.

yes indeed you are right but a land tax approach has some potential for better land useage of that which is available

julieq

I can't help thinking the practical difficulties of valuing land potential on a massive scale would outweigh the benefits, and politically this would be incredibly difficult to get through. Can't see it happening at all.

92203

julieq wrote: »

The bigger issue is the scandalous difficulty in obtaining planning permission. Any small group of locals can kick up such a fuss that it becomes almost impossible to build, with the latest wheeze being Village Green status. Ultimately until you stop nimbyism you don't solve the housing shortage.

This is so true, and it doesn't just apply to housing either. People complain about infrastructure projects too

grizzly1911

Answer to the question NO.

Increase the tax burden yes.

In many areas you cannot get planning, even where there is a need regardless of NIMBYism for political reasons.

Business cannot afford the business rates in many cases, nor can the private individuals afford the level of council tax.

Many people (individuals) may have a plot with some excess land or a bigger house than needed but are cash poor.

Outside the SE the cost of downsizing in many cases is not affordable anyway.

wotsthat

It's never going to happen. Those holding the land are the one's deciding whether to tax it or not.

A documentary a couple of years ago (can't find a link) reckoned that 15% of the land handed out by William I to his cronies was still owned by their ancestors today. We hardly seem like a nation that finds 'progressive' land taxation acceptable.