hugh wrote
Doctor drivelled
John Williamson wrote
hugh wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

If travellers decide they want to settle on a legitimate field, then LVT is due on the field. Then travellers for
the first time ever will be paying into HMG.

Hang on, you said the tax couldn't be passed on by the
landlord/landowner to the tenant. So the travellers will still pay
SFA, unless of course the land owner builds it into the pitch
rental but again you said that couldn't happen with property
rentals so how come it suddenly can apply to travellers?

You don't expect him to be consistent, do you?

What would happen in real life is that the rental in all cases
would be set to include the LVT, even if this didn't show on the
final receipt, offset by a reduction in tax on the actual income.

An element may be LVT, but not all. When moving over from this
current broken system to LVT, the landlord cannot pass on LVT, as if he tried to pass on all of it by raising the
rents, it implies he
was charging below market value.

The net result over a few years would be an increase in all rents, while reducing the value of all land bought and
sold, so reducing outgoings for property owners. The rich, who could afford to buy, would therefore pay less than
the poor, who can't. Socialism in action. ;-)

Pay attention. But the rich would be in locations with higher land values so pay more LVT.

So the rich would be in England

Nope, they'd **** off to europe which wouldnt be stupid enough to have just an LVT.

and the poor would all be in Scotland,

Nope. All house owners in britain would be destituted by an LVT that was
the only tax and so had to raise all the current tax revenue with an LVT.

so if Scotland gets independence (BACK ON TOPIC)

Too radical.

that would get rid of the poverty problem.

Fraid not. With just an LVT, there would be no one actually stupid enough
to own any land, so they would all be squatters, the epitomy of poverty
except in the sense that some beggars can be better off than you might think.