We need a land and wealth tax to replace income and transaction tax.

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Having witnessed her performances on several occasions. She is someone who cannot be taken seriously. As she adds nothing to constructive debate.

I find it a bit odd that Lucas was calling on the government to commission a "programme of research" into LVT when the Scottish Green Party seems perfectly capable of producing its own research on the subject. Is such a thing beyond the capabilities of the Green Party (Enland & Wales)?

cepheus

Looks like 99 gainers for one loser to me!



So do Thrugelmir, Antrobus and Grizzly care to declare the area of land they own? I'm a property owner in the SE, but it doesn't cover a vast area.

No I'm still at a loss to see why a land tax on the actual land (not value of property) isn't the least controversial tax for the average person, if not necessarily for the average UKIP and Tory politician.

LVT is practicable and is already implemented in New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Latvia and Australia. It could provide a fair, efficient and sustainable source of local government finance in England.

A Land Value Tax for England – Fair, Efficient, Sustainable

"Perhaps most worrying was Gauke's astonishing misrepresentation of the conclusions of [the Institute of Fiscal Studies] Mirrlees review – claiming that the IFS had decided LVT would be unworkable, when in actual fact it had said the case for an 'official effort' to 'design a workable system' for LVT is 'overwhelming'. Rather than creating problems and ignoring expert advice, the Treasury should be looking at progressive solutions to make our broken tax system more effective."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/08/caroline-lucas-government-land-tax

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

... I'm an house owner in the SE, but it doesn't cover a vast area. ...

Then you'd very probably be one of the losers, I imagine.

But anyway, you're missing the point in so many ways.

We have property taxes in the UK in the form of council tax and business rates. They are (loosely) based on the value of property. There are some pretty good economic arguments that it would be better to have property taxes based on the unimproved value of the land. There are also some pretty good political arguments that it would be difficult to implement, and politics is the art of the possible after all. But all you're doing is changing the basis on which taxes are raised, and therefore reallocating liability.

A LVT might allow you to raise some money from the agricultural sector, if you chose not to extend the existing UBR exemption, that is. But I'm not that sure why someone would want to dump a load of extra tax on the agricultural sector. It would probably result in a reallocation of liability in the residential sector (which is were most of the land value lies), with those famous mansion owners being forced to cough up more. But then that's because CT is effectively capped - you could probably achieve much the same effect by introducing some new CT bands, I, J, whatever, with much less effort.

Some of us just view the question of what basis we should have for property taxes as a technical issue. There's nothing magical about LVT.

PS I've never understood why many on the left appear so enthusiastic about LVT. It's entire justification is based on an acceptance of the principles of classical economics - it's straight out of Adam Smith. Surely under socialism all land will be held in common ownership anyway, so what would be the point of taxing it?

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

So do Thrugelmir, Antrobus and Grizzly care to declare the area of land they own? I'm a property owner in the SE, but it doesn't cover a vast area.

I'm not a land owner per se. My current property was built in the 30's. The attraction to me being the larger plot size than more modern houses. Not suitable for redevelopment though. So why should I be taxed merely for being the guardian of a piece of dirt?

grizzly1911

cepheus wrote: »

So do Thrugelmir, Antrobus and Grizzly care to declare the area of land they own? I'm a property owner in the SE, but it doesn't cover a vast area.

I am a property owner in the NW and it doesn't cover a vast area. So less likely to be impacted than yourself.

antrobus wrote: »

- you could probably achieve much the same effect by introducing some new CT bands, I, J, whatever, with much less effort.

I tend to agree with that argument (as I don't live in one;)). I think there is some merit in putting a few extra bands in.

Somehow I don't think the landed gentry would get hit that hard. No doubt some offshore holding companies in the Cayman/Virgin Islands will spring up, as used by somepeople of note, for "legitimate" tax purposes.

I can understand the view that if land is "banked" with planning permission that some form of levy should be made to encourage it's development. Not saying I agree with it as the cost would be passed on to the purchaser.

Presumably developers would stop short of obtaining full planning permission. What would happen with banked land, with permission, when we hit the next crash and demand collapses?

We tend to forget that sizeable stamp duty is already levied on purchases.

Who would decide that somebody had a nice paddock , just outside the Cotswolds for instance, that was ripe for development and therefore should attract a hefty tax charge?

CLAPTON

The local council is already responsible for deciding whether land can be developed (subject to appeal to the government)

Anyone can apply for planning permission on any land (they don't have to won it).

Agricultural land without planning permission won't be affected by LVT.

cepheus

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am a property owner in the NW and it doesn't cover a vast area. So less likely to be impacted than yourself.....

We tend to forget that sizeable stamp duty is already levied on purchases.

Which all goes to prove you haven't read what land tax would be most likely to replace.

Relationship with other taxes

It probably makes most sense for a Land Value Tax to replace Business Rates and Stamp Duty Land Tax, as ‘the business rate is not a good tax’ and ‘the case for maintaining stamp duty is very weak indeed’ (Mirrlees 2011). Council Tax would remain, although it is also in need of serious reform (Lyons 2007). So, all land, whatever its use, would be subject to the new Land Value Tax, except for land with an occupied primary residence on it up to a property value of £2m. Land Value Tax on very expensive primary residences would supplement the Council Tax, which at this end of the market accounts for a tiny proportion of a property’s value (Griffith et al 2012).

Antrobus PS I've never understood why many on the left appear so enthusiastic about LVT. It's entire justification is based on an acceptance of the principles of classical economics - it's straight out of Adam Smith. Surely under socialism all land will be held in common ownership anyway, so what would be the point of taxing it?

Why is the choice between what we have now and full blown Socialism. Very few people want either, just a more equitable and fairer distribution than this which you clearly support. We can guess why.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

...Agricultural land without planning permission won't be affected by LVT.

That depends on what arrangements for LVT you propose. The plans put forward by the Scottish Green Party (for example) do involve taxing agricultural land without planning permission, but other proponents of LVT have suggested various mechanisms for not doing so.

robmatic

cepheus wrote: »

Which all goes to prove you haven't read what land tax would be most likely to replace.

Why is the choice between what we have now and full blown Socialism. Very few people want either, just a more equitable and fairer distribution than this which you clearly support. We can guess why.

Hold on, is this big idea basically just an extra tax on the agricultural sector? I doubt that's going to solve all our problems.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

Which all goes to prove you haven't read what land tax would be most likely to replace....

No, that proves that you haven't read what land tax would be most likely to replace.

Your quote is from the CLASS think piece whose author states that "all land, whatever its use, would be subject to the new Land Value Tax, except for land with an occupied primary residence on it up to a property value of £2m" i.e Council Tax continues, but SDLT goes

The Green Party (both Scotland and E&W) however want all land, whatever its use, to be subject to a Land Value Tax, without exception, i.e Council Tax goes, but SDLT continues.

There are a number of different proposals regarding LVT.