Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Note: LVT is a tax on the "value" of the land, not the building.
Assessed annually.

Ed balls is one of those got us into all this trouble. He is a
tosser.
Exactly how is it to be assessed?

The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly and the rate demand has two values, rateable value (on
which you pay rates,
no upper limit) which is generally a little shy of market value to
save arguments and an unimproved land value, what the land on its
own would be worth given current planning policies. If total value
(excluding your own home) you hold in one state (it's a state tax)
exceeds a certain amount you
have to pay Land Tax on it.

http://www.chan-naylor.com.au/land-tax/

In the UK we had Schedule A Income Taxation from the inception on
Income Tax by Tory William Pitt. It was a tax taken off your income
based on the increased values on LAND you owned. A clunky land tax.

The Tories, controlled by large landowners, who had/have political
control via the House of (land) Lords, abolished Schedule A in 1963.

Quite right too - a ****ty tax if ever there was one. AIUI, it was
based on the rent you might have raised had you, instead of living in
the house, rented it out.

Your comprehension is nil. Yes. What it did was reclaim the "value" created
by community economic activity that soaked into the ground and crystallized
as land values. The higher the land value the higher the rental value.

What a concept, eh? Taxing you on what you might have done.

It taxed you on the increased values that soaked into the land which you the
landowner NEVER created.

Land Value Taxation makes people free. The fruits of their labours are not
taken in the form of Income Tax (a tax on production) and Sales Tax (a tax
on transactions - a tax on trade) - what we should NOT be taxing.

You have no idea of economics whatsoever - a Daily Mail reader.

snip drivel