hugh wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"djc" wrote in message
...
On 14/03/12 19:39, Adrian Simpson wrote:
In article , hugh
] writes
Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO.
That is the only point at which the value of the property has any
relationship with your income.

Most of the houses in my street were built in 1939. Up until 5
years ago, one of them was still lived in by its original
occupant. How would you have valued that one ?

Why not on its 1939 value. It reflects what the owner could afford
in 1939. If they stayed there all that time then : it had not *in
their view* appreciated vis a vis any alternative accommodation
they could afford; if it had they could have moved home and
realised the implicit capital gain.

In 1939 it probabaly costed £500, now maybe worth £500,000. What have
they done to earn that 0.5 million?
NOTHING.

They haven't gained a penny until they actually sell the house

They can get a loan/remortgage to tap into the wealth in the land under the
house. If they do then the windfall for doing NOTHING comes on the sale.
Landowning is a giant sluice for community created wealth locked up in land.

- then they have to buy somewhere else to live. Alternatively their
estate
will be liable for inheritance tax eventually.

When they are dead. People usually do need a palace to live when selling a
house.

Where did the value come from?
From economic growth by community acitivy. That is where land values
come from -not the sky. Land Value Tax "reclaims" that community
waelth to pay for community services. But then no Income tax, VAT,
etc. No one takes your private wealth.

Taxing the hosue on the annual land "value", not the house value,
will be very fair.

How do you define fairness?

If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for public services?
By levying a charge on the "value" of land. People who live in valuable
locations will pay much more than those who live in less expensive
properties. That's fair. It also happens to be the most efficient way to
fund the service we all share in common.

THE PROBLEM

Three million children today are living in poverty. Successions of
governments, of different parties, can't change this due to the tax system.
Children born to the poorest families suffer little or no social mobility.

Are politicians to blame?

The biggest scam in history was instigated on the people centuries ago by
the Lords, Barons and Knights of the land. Governments used the tax system
to milk the poor.

Why did they do it?

To enrich the people who own land. It is operated by all democratic
governments around the world. The biggest winners are those who own land or
homes in the best locations.

People who rent pay rent to landlords and taxes to the government. People
who rent pay taxes to fund the service that they receive: police, rail,
roads, army, etc. That sounds fair. They pay for what they receive.

Britain's top earners pay on average £1.25 million in taxes in their
lifetime. The people who rent their homes are generally in the lowest income
bracket. Over their working lives the poor pay over £0.25 million in taxes.
The rich on average pay 5 times more in taxes.

That sounds fair. Doesn't it?

Income tax is the more you earn, the more you pay. Called Progressive taxes.
Progressive taxes has exactly the opposite effect.

Rich people complain that they pay a lot of money to the government. But,
the government pays it all back to them.

How do they do this?

Governments spend our tax money on infrastructure, such as: Schools
Universities Hospitals Rail networks Roads This infrastructure raises the
productivity of the economy resulting in economic growth. Because of the way
the market economy works, those economic gains are crystallised as land
values. Then these gains surface as windfalls or capital gains in the
property market.

Those capital gains are not shared out equally amongst all of us, taxpayers
who rent their homes for example, are excluded.

The windfalls are pocketed by people who own land. The rises in property
values more than offsets the taxes they pay into the public purse. Then who
pays for the services the rich people use? The families on the lowest
incomes.

Every increase in house value for top earners offsets any tax they
contribute. During boom times it's possible to claw back a lifetimes taxes
in just three years. Meanwhile...the lowest earners and those who pay rent,
pay more overall.

Families on the lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich.

Is that fair?

There is only one way to make the tax system fair. Parliament has to tell
the taxman to stop collecting taxes from people's wages.

We need a kind of tax reform that Winston Churchill and Lloyd George nearly
introduced in Parliament 100 years ago. But, the landlords blocked them.

The only war Winston Churchill lost was the war against the British
landlords. If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for public
services? By levying a charge on the value of land. People who live in
valuable locations will pay much more than those who live in less expensive
properties. That's fair. It also happens to be the most efficient way to
fund the service we all share in common.

THE SOLUTION

There is a simple solution to this injustice.

We should place the cost of public services on the values of land. Owners
with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who rent their
homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be able to claw
back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services they receive and
we are all treated as equals