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

nicko33

geoffky wrote: »

Good article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2013/mar/04/who-receives-government-subsidy-housing-2013

crap article

cepheus

from wiki

A land value tax (or site valuation tax) is a levy on the unimproved value of land. It is an ad valorem tax on land that disregards the value of buildings, personal property and other improvements. A land value tax (LVT) is different from other property taxes, because these are taxes on the whole value of real estate: the combination of land, buildings, and improvements to the site.

Land value taxes have been implemented throughout Denmark,[3] Estonia, the Netherlands, Russia, Singapore, and Taiwan. The tax has been applied in subregions of Australia (New South Wales), China (Hong Kong), Mexico (Mexicali), and the United States (Pennsylvania).

Taxing land reduces the incentive for tax evasion. Multi-national corporations for instance can not take land with them overseas. Land values are considered public information unlike income, sales, etc. GIS maps provide a means to easily compare taxes paid on land values. Such transparency reduces landowners' ability to evade the tax.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

from wiki

A land value tax (or site valuation tax) is a levy on the unimproved value of land. ...

Yes that's true. The OECD has (for some time) advocated increasing taxation on land, but that's so that countries can reduce the "harmful" taxes on corporate profits and incomes. That's the "rethink" that the OECD are arguing that we should make.

cepheus

Why do you say it is politically difficult if 0.6 per cent of the British people own 69 per cent of the land on which we live? Because the aristocracy still have clout?

robmatic

cepheus wrote: »

Why do you say it is politically difficult if 0.6 per cent of the British people own 69 per cent of the land on which we live? Because the aristocracy still have clout?

Who is this 0.6%? I would imagine a large chunk of that 69% is actually owned or utilised by farmers for agricultural purposes rather than by the aristocracy. Why tax the production of food?

cepheus

the vast majority is actually owned by a wealthy core of just 1,200 aristocrats and their relatives

Here is a selection

robmatic

cepheus wrote: »

the vast majority is actually owned by a wealthy core of just 1,200 aristocrats and their relatives

Here is a selection

Actually that demonstrates that most of it isn't owned by aristocrats. And a lot of their acreage seems to consist of highland estates which isn't much use to the rest of society.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

Why do you say it is politically difficult if 0.6 per cent of the British people own 69 per cent of the land on which we live? Because the aristocracy still have clout?

Why is what " politically difficult"?

Has a posting been deleted?

cepheus

Isn't that what you mean here?

However as the report notes, the scope for switching to 'recurrent taxes on immovable property' is somewhat limited because (a) such taxes are levied by "sub-national governments" and are (b) unpopular.

PaulF81

Yep. Unpopular. It will never happen. Don't underestimate the peasant underclass's inability to think for themselves. Th daily mail will say its a bad idea, therefore, to the peasant underclass illiterate electorate, its a bad idea.