Doctor Drivel wrote
dennis@home wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

So he now pays ZERO tax. A parasite. With Land Valuation Tax he would have no need to demolish the building. The
levy is on the land whether there is a building on it or not. If he can't make productive use of the land then he
sell it to someone who can. LVT forces productive use of land.

Have fun explaining why it doesnt in Australia which
has had an LVT for more than a century now.

Who would want to buy land if they are going to pay tax and have no hope of actually using it?

If he has not hope of the land productively using it, it will not buy.

Have fun explaining why they still do in Australia
which has had an LVT for more than a century now.

Get it?

Nothing get, you dont have a ****ing clue about the basics.

You would have to change planning law so it can be used for something if its primary use isn't wanted.

That is usually the case.

Its planning law that screws up developments now and it is what forces people to rip roofs off buildings because
nobody wants the building and the owner can't use it for something else if the planners get in the way as they
invariably do.

Planning leave a lot to be desired. The planning system was geared as
a mean on population control, not to promote high quality buildings
and environments.

The prime problem is land is being hoarded by speculators

Wrong, as always.

- what brought about the 2008 crash.

Like hell it did.

Every country that has implemented Land Valuation Taxation has seen a rise in the economy and lowering of land/house
prices .

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Australia has in fact some of the highest land/house prices in the entire ****ing world.

The prices remain static as the economy grows around the land.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Australian land prices are nothing even remotely resembling anything like static.

The only think you did get right is the pathetic excuse for a nick that you cower behind.