On Oct 16, 11:14*pm, hugh ] wrote:
In message , Doctor *Drivel
writes







hugh wrote:
In message , Doctor *Drivel
writes
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No
Income tax or Sales tax, etc. *Studies have proven that a
owner/occupier man on 40K per year when changing over to LVT would
be approx 6-7K better off each year. *Then land prices will remain
steady and people could afford bigger and better homes at highly
affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away
with as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax
as the only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as
it is now, or, if they think they can get away with it, greater.
Therefore, on average, we would all be paying at least the same
amount of tax as now.

No. Read above.

The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the
people paid to assess the new tax.

The winners will be all. HMG revenue would drop as LVT encourages
enterprise - the easy route to predator unearned income - land and
its resources - is gone. *Those who own land would have to work
harder to make it pay. *No absentee landlords who use owning land
and house as lucrative sideline.

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up
paying the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how
well disguised this is.

Read my other post on this. LVT CANNOT be passed on as the
free-market comes to level the limit.

Nonsense. Rental level is set by demand and supply.

You are getting. It is called the free-market.

At the moment rental is limited because amongst other things the
tenant *also has to
pay council tax. If this went or was in effect transferred to the
landlord there is capacity on the side of the tenant to pay more.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

I don't know what average council tax works out at but around here say
150 per month on top of current average rents of about 500 per month. All landlords would simultaneously increase rent to compensate.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

You have a pretty naive view of how competition works in practice. Similarly
if the tenant no longer pays income tax, national insurance, Vat
again capacity to pay more increases and as demand in housing is
always greater than supply rents would rise.

Unused speculative land and housing would come onto the market filling
the housing gap. Relaxed planning would alsos improve the housing gap.
My idea of planning is almost none at all.

So who would be responsible for all the flooding caused by all these
millions of acres of water absorbing fields now covered with houses and
tarmac?
--
hugh

Don't confuse him with more facts! His brain can't take it.