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: »If you haven't applied for planning permission or don't want to then would you be subject to it?
Yes, yes , yes, yes. Of course; the principle is to encourage efficient use of a very scarce resource; it would make no sense if your could 'opt out ' until you wanted to sell at an very high profit.0 -
Yes, yes , yes, yes. Of course; the principle is to encourage efficient use of a very scarce resource; it would make no sense if your could 'opt out ' until you wanted to sell at an very high profit.
But where will my kids play or where would I put my vegetable patch?
All sounds very communist to me telling me how I can or cannot use my land. More like aback door land grab. Potentially forcing a land owner to sell though imposing taxation they cannot pay with out a "forced sale" of an asset.
If I personally apply for planning permission and then don't use it then you may convince me.
Sounds like an envy tax.
next we will have surcharges on any investments deemed "excessive" - tried that in Cyprus seemed less than effective at catching the big players and politically disastrous."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: »But where will my kids play or where would I put my vegetable patch?
All sounds very communist to me telling me how I can or cannot use my land. More like aback door land grab. Potentially forcing a land owner to sell though imposing taxation they cannot pay with out a "forced sale" of an asset.
If I personally apply for planning permission and then don't use it then you may convince me.
Sounds like an envy tax.
next we will have surcharges on any investments deemed "excessive" - tried that in Cyprus seemed less than effective at catching the big players and politically disastrous.
I can only repeat what which I have said already.
It is not a tax on assets as such but to encourage efficient use of land.
So in an area with a grave shortage of housing it would encourage (say) factories or some commercial premises to relocate elsewhere to free up the space for housing (just as an example).
And yes, there will almost certainly be one old lady somewhere who has had a heroic life and will now be a little disadvantaged: hopeful her grandchildren will have a better life though.0 -
I can only repeat what which I have said already.
It is not a tax on assets as such but to encourage efficient use of land.
So in an area with a grave shortage of housing it would encourage (say) factories or some commercial premises to relocate elsewhere to free up the space for housing (just as an example).
And yes, there will almost certainly be one old lady somewhere who has had a heroic life and will now be a little disadvantaged: hopeful her grandchildren will have a better life though.
But is a tax all the same that doesn't take account of ability to pay.
I am sure there many other layered up costs that will get that little old lady to move without adding another one.
What would happen in a particular borough if all land attached to property say bigger than 30sqm became subject to LVT?
If the commercial property relocated perhaps there wouldn't be a demand for accommodation in that locality but it would create demand in their new location.
I am not convinced that LVT is the best way to free up land usage. If there is areal need I am sure their are existing crowbars that can be applied to free up the necessary land."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 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.
That sounds like a good variation on the land tax idea to me, since it simplifies things even more. I still can't understand why this would cost me or anyone else on this thread more, except possibly yourself who presumably owns a lot of land. In fact if re-distributed rather than used to pay off the national debt, the overall tax bill of the average median citizen would plummet, releasing monies to stimulate the economy.
However you spin it, the vast quantity of land is owned by the very few. Now in the case of assets such as businesses, the rich threaten to take them abroad when asked to pay a fair share of tax, but the rich can't exactly run off with a strip of land can they? So in addition to land being extremely unequally distributed it is also rather static and therefore immune from those sort of blackmail tactics. In other words it is an ideal target for taxing the rich.0 -
In other words it is an ideal target for taxing the rich.
Lots of wealthy people dump land, price falls, property prices tumble, landowners aren't rich any more and aren't able to pay said tax.
Banks collapse because property values are undermined. The values are only high because of relative scarcity.
Currency becomes worthless, National Debt spirals as we are charged more for interest. Average median citizen rummages for tarpaulin and corrugated sheet."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: »Lots of wealthy people dump land, price falls, property prices tumble, landowners aren't rich any more and aren't able to pay said tax.
Banks collapse because property values are undermined. The values are only high because of relative scarcity.
Currency becomes worthless, National Debt spirals as we are charged more for interest. Average median citizen rummages for tarpaulin and corrugated sheet.
Maybe one has been celebrating the weekend a little early?0 -
Maybe one has been celebrating the weekend a little early?
If only.
Where do you think the National Trust picks up it's tax soaked piles from?
What would be the impact on any commodity of swamping the market with available goods."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 -
However you spin it, the vast quantity of land is owned by the very few.
I take it you're including the Forestry Commission, National Trust etc. as the 'very few' as well. Even if you're talking about the traditional aristocrat, there is a problem with taxing only the 'very few' as there is, well, not very many of them!Now in the case of assets such as businesses, the rich threaten to take them abroad when asked to pay a fair share of tax, but the rich can't exactly run off with a strip of land can they?
They could sell the land and have an equivalent amount of capital which would not be subject to a punitive tax. Evading this tax doesn't seem like too much of a challenge for the very rich.So in addition to land being extremely unequally distributed it is also rather static and therefore immune from those sort of blackmail tactics. In other words it is an ideal target for taxing the rich.
Also an ideal target for taxing the middle classes. People who own houses in the South East of England say. Unless you're suggesting that properties worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, or even more than a million, would not be subject to the tax whilst smallholdings in the North of England would be, as that doesn't seem fairly redistributive.0 -
...I still can't understand why this would cost me or anyone else on this thread more, except possibly yourself who presumably owns a lot of land.
Because, LVT isn't a tax on acreage, it's a tax on value. As far as the value of land is concerned, it's residential property that matters. A hectare of arable farming land in south-east England apparently goes for around £20k, get permission to put some houses on it and it's £2.5 million. The value of the land that sits under the UK's 26 million households is worth far more than all those acres of pasture and wheat fields.
You also need to appreciate that council tax in England is based on 1991 valuations, unfortunately Land Registry figures don't go back that far, but in the period Jan 1995 to Mar 2013 they show property values in the South-East increasing by 290.67; the comparative figure for the North is 177.29. So replacing CT with LVT (or indeed any kind of broadly similar revaluation) would involve a substantial shift in the burden of tax from places like the North to London and the South-east.
So if you happen to own a house somewhere in theSouth-east you will get well and truly clobbered under LVT...In fact if re-distributed rather than used to pay off the national debt, the overall tax bill of the average median citizen would plummet, releasing monies to stimulate the economy.
That is complete and utter economic nonsense. If you take money from one person in the form of tax, and then give it to someone else, the sum total of money available for spending does not change.
P.S. If you decide to use LVT to raise sufficient money to cut the "overall tax bill of the average median citizen", (as opposed to just covering the CT take) you're going to get clobbered even more.0
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
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards