We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
We need a land and wealth tax to replace income and transaction tax.
Options
Comments
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »....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.
There's probably not a lot of money in it, maybe a couple of billion, which might be enough to (say) get rid of the 45% IT band, which is the kind of thing the OECD wants to see. But any substantial shift from taxing income to taxing property would require a really big increase in property taxes, irrespective of the chosen tax base.grizzly1911 wrote: »....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....
Interestingly enough, the Scottish Green Party had a pretty good look at the position in Scotland and concluded that the suggestion that LVT would bring "disused land into use" had a "very limited application nationally" and that it was "not the golden goose of LVT that some imagine".0 -
Which all goes to prove you haven't read what land tax would be most likely to replace.
I have read various takes on it.
You automatically see the fact that you have land and property as having the means to actually pay a tax based on a theoretical value.
With Stamp Duty you at least have the chance to factor that tax into your decision to allow you to account for the TCO. It is also taken upfront and doesn't need to be collected or attempted to be collected at a future point.
There are a good many people in larger property, with or without land that do not have the means to afford additional taxation or levies on their property. They are asset "rich" but cash poor.
There are already fairly steep rises in Council Tax once you move above band E, relative to any additional service you are likely to consume. Those bands are also pretty elastic too, someone I know is downsizing to what is effectively a modest two bed terrace, with a downstairs loo, that is in band E.
On the basis that their is reportedly £30/40bn of uncollected taxes, much of which, I would suspect, would be "due" from the same people you want targeted. Something tells me if they already don't want to pay, they will find some mechanism to side step something even more draconian. A simple increase in upper rate tax sent them into a frenzy."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
The primary objective of a LVT is to encourage the more efficient use of land.
Althought the devils is always in the detail, it doesn't aim to raise more tax overall although the burden does of course fall differently.
Many people who are asset rich and cash poor resolve the issue by selling some of their assets.
There seems no reason to be hostile to LVT simply because some-one chooses not to use their valuable assets in an effective manner.0 -
The primary objective of a LVT is to encourage the more efficient use of land.
Althought the devils is always in the detail, it doesn't aim to raise more tax overall although the burden does of course fall differently.
Many people who are asset rich and cash poor resolve the issue by selling some of their assets.
There seems no reason to be hostile to LVT simply because some-one chooses not to use their valuable assets in an effective manner.
With a freehold land system who decides whether land belonging to an individual is "valuable" and therefore should be taxed? If I have an acre of paddock or garden attached to my house or 50 acres of parkland?
If I own a piece of land why should someone decide it is valuable and should then be liable to a tax?
Selling assets isn't always practicably possible."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »With a freehold land system who decides whether land belonging to an individual is "valuable" and therefore should be taxed? If I have an acre of paddock or garden attached to my house or 50 acres of parkland?
If I own a piece of land why should someone decide it is valuable and should then be liable to a tax?
Selling assets isn't always practicably possible.
With a freehold land system who decides to levy council tax?
With a freehold system who decides to compulsory purchase land for development?
Devil is in the detail but;
one would envisage that within any given area it is the decision to give planning permission that will greatly affect the LVT.
Currently most of the benefits of such a decision accrues to the owner of the land who has done nothing specific to 'earn' the added value.
A tax will encourage (but not force) the owner to develop the land.0 -
.....
one would envisage that within any given area it is the decision to give planning permission that will greatly affect the LVT.
Currently most of the benefits of such a decision accrues to the owner of the land who has done nothing specific to 'earn' the added value.
A tax will encourage (but not force) the owner to develop the land.
I imagine that one might like to consider changing planning law in that case. At the moment, anybody can apply for planning permission on a given plot of land, you don't have to be the owner. So some poor widow could wake up one morning to discover that some 'aggressive' would-be developer has won planning permission to erect a block of flats in her back garden, increasing the value of her land, and leaving her with an LVT bill that she can't afford to pay, forcing her to sell up against her wishes, and so forth.
I suppose it could be argued that it would amoun to making a more effective use of land, but I also imagine it would be tremendously unpopular.0 -
With a freehold land system who decides to levy council tax?
With a freehold system who decides to compulsory purchase land for development?
Devil is in the detail but;
one would envisage that within any given area it is the decision to give planning permission that will greatly affect the LVT.
Currently most of the benefits of such a decision accrues to the owner of the land who has done nothing specific to 'earn' the added value.
A tax will encourage (but not force) the owner to develop the land.
Council Tax is technically for services provided for the occupants of a property isn't it.
If the state want to CPO then they presumably have identified a need for the land and will, to some degree, have to recompense the landowner. They are having to make a concious decision to acquire the land for a "real" purpose not just levy a tax because they think it might be worth something.
I accept the point that land banks with development agreed shouldn't be sat on indefinitely. Time limiting the planning approval and enforcing reapplication with attendant costs would go some way to stopping this.
If as a landowner I don't want my land developing and therefore not applied for planning permission,would that stop LVT being levied?
What if the owner of the land has paid a hope value for the site? They may have earned a good part of that value. How would that be accounted for?
If I have a parcel of land just outside the defined planning boundary on day 1. No permission being available. If on day 2 the LA decide to encompass my land and decide planning permission could be available, when would I be subject to the LTV?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
The principles behind LVT are indeed different that with council tax although each require a value to be placed on land/building.
In no way does council tax simply reflect the cost of services to the individual owner but reflects societies view that asset rich people should pay more than asset poor people irrespective of income levels.
As an essential element of LVT is to encourage the efficient usage of land, then yes once land has been given planning permission a higher level of LVT would be levied and of course you have now acquire the potential to make a substantial windfall.0 -
The principles behind LVT are indeed different that with council tax although each require a value to be placed on land/building.
In no way does council tax simply reflect the cost of services to the individual owner but reflects societies view that asset rich people should pay more than asset poor people irrespective of income levels.
As an essential element of LVT is to encourage the efficient usage of land, then yes once land has been given planning permission a higher level of LVT would be levied and of course you have now acquire the potential to make a substantial windfall.
If you haven't applied for planning permission or don't want to then would you be subject to it?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards