djc wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And we KNOW that in Australia, which has had an LVT for more
than a century now, that landlords do in fact pass on the LVT,
regardless of what some stupid academic claims isnt possible.

No, that is rubbish. I currently have a house up for rent in
Ballarat and it will fetch what the market says it will fetch.
Any prospective tenant could not give a toss whether I am liable
for Land Tax or not or whether my marginal rate of tax is 15%,
30% or 40%. He will pay what the property is worth, regardless of
the tax I pay.

Of course he dosn't, but you do. Unless you are very altruistic
the rent at which you are willing to let that property will take into
account your costs of ownership, which includes any tax liability.
If the market won't pay that price then you have a bad investment.

Particularly with his insane scheme for just an LVT as the only tax.

It would have to be an immense tax to raise the same total in tax
collected and its very far from clear whether any tenant could actually
pay that immense tax on any normal property, so you would in fact
see very few landlords at all, because renting just wouldnt be viable.

And very few house owners either for the same reason.

Its a completely hare brainded scheme and thats why NOT ONE
country or even region in the entire world is actually that stupid.

If you didnt like the poll tax riots, you aint seen nothing if any govt
was actually stupid enough to propose that sort of tax today.