In message , John Williamson
writes
djc wrote:
On 14/03/12 19:39, Adrian Simpson wrote:
In article , hugh
] writes
Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That
is the only point at which the value of the property has any
relationship with your income.
Most of the houses in my street were built in 1939. Up until 5 years
ago, one of them was still lived in by its original occupant. How would
you have valued that one ?
Why not on its 1939 value. It reflects what the owner could afford
in
1939. If they stayed there all that time then : it had not *in their
view* appreciated vis a vis any alternative accommodation they could
afford; if it had they could have moved home and realised the implicit
capital gain.

So, in your view, if people don't change homes, they should pay less,
possibly *much* less in property taxes?

I think that property tax should only pay for those services directly
and solely related to property.
And how would you cope with rented properties?

Sam way and by reducing the property tax on rented property, which
incidentally is paid by the tenant you would reduce the cost of renting
thus enabling people to save to buy their own home. Alternatively it
might get rid of this ridiculous idea called the property ladder whereby
people complain that house prices have gone up to much so they can't buy
a house which they wish to do so they can then benefit - by the prices
going up.
--
hugh

In message , Rod Speed
writes
hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Jgharston wrote

Here in the UK the populous threaten revolution at the very hint
of a mention of the suggestion of a revaluation
after 20 years.

Yet a tax based on what your house would have been worth in 1991
(even if it wasn't built then) sounds like
something out of the
Monster Raving Loony Party's manifesto. It seems lost on the
average Mail reader that *on average* a revaluation
will not affect anyone's council tax, subject to the revaluation not being
used as an excuse to increase spending.

Ah, but it*will* be used as that excuse. That's what Daily Mail
readers realise that some others don't want to admit.

The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That
is the only point at which the value of the
property has any
relationship with your income.

Its got nothing to do with your income.
Exactly
Everything to
do with the higher value propertys paying more tax.


Why should someone pay more tax just because their property has gone up
in value. You seem not to understand the difference between fixed and
liquid assets.
--
hugh

"jgharston" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:
One fair method would be to ... charge each person for what they use...
Oh, didn't they try that? It was called the Poll Tax, IIRC, and got

But people /weren't/ charged for what they used, they were all
charged the same idential median amount.

thrown out very quickly. Or you could charge a local income tax, but
that would be too complicated to work out....

Local Income Tax is **** easy. HMRC already have all the figures,
indexed by local authority area. If HMRC don't have your details,
your income is below the taxable allowance, so you wouldn't be
paying anyway.

(Or, you're a member of the black economy, or you're one of a
small number of HM Forces or Merchant Seamen who are known
anomolies that get dealt with on an individual basis.)

Income tax is a daft as the Poll tax Land Valuation Tax is the best by a
million miles. The Single Tax. Set annually by the "value" of the "land".
You can't take land off-shore so easy and cheap to collect. You can't take
an Athens mansion off-shore, or one in Belgravia either. Income tax takes
away 30% of the tax in collection charges. Land value take prevents land
speculation - land speculation caused the 1929 and 2008 crashes. It pays
for infrastructure - as Hong Kong did building a metro.

hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote
hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote

I know a number of people who have been in the same house for over thirty years. Are you suggesting that their
property taxes should be based on a value from the 1970s?

Why not? Their property value now is determined by what other people can afford to pay for it, whereas they may
well could not now afford to buy it themselves.

The reality is the whole principle of a property tax is largely "unfair". But first you must define what criteria
for assessing "fairness".

One fair method would be to calulate that each person in a town generates on average X kilos of rubbish per year,
uses a certain anount of street lighting as they move round, and so on, then charge each person for what they use...

You say fair without first defining fairness.

It isnt even possible.

Is it fair to charge everyone the same amount, even the destitute and the sinking rich ?

Is it fair to charge someone who hasnt moved for 60 years much
less than someone who has moved in the last couple of years ?

The biggest items of expenditure for local government are social
services and education, neither of which are directly linked to properties.

Yes, and some places only charge the property owner for non social
services and education is paid for by taxation thats not on propertys.

There are advantages and disadvantages with both approaches.

If you only charge an income tax, those who dont have
any taxable income dont have to pay any taxes at all.

The US system sees the bottom HALF of tax payers
pay no nett federal income tax. That completely mad.

Oh, didn't they try that? It was called the Poll Tax, IIRC, and got thrown out very quickly. Or you could charge a
local income tax, but that would be too complicated to work out....

Poll tax was unpopular simply because suddenly people who had never paid anything found themselves with a tax bill.

Its also unpopular amounst economists and others
because its a VERY regressive tax when even the
destitute pay as much as the stinking rich do.

Atleast a VAT isnt quite so regressive because the stinking rich
do tend to spend a lot more on what does incur the VAT and
quite a bit of stuff like basic food is often exempt a VAT tax.

Corse the stinking rich can escape much of a VAT just by
spending much of what they spend out of the country too.

There is no such thing as a 'fair' tax.

If there was, we'd have found it by now and everyone would be using that approach.

Bring back the rates. At least they were based on a nominal rental value for each property, which meant that bigger
homes paid more rates on average than small ones.

But the nominal rental values varied enormously within the same town.
Generally under the present system residents of larger homes pay more.

And why should they have to when that particular tax mostly pays for the
sort of services that dont vary much if any at all by the size of the house.
And those in the larger houses are rather less likely to be recieving social
services from local govt too.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , John Williamson
writes
hugh wrote:
In message , John Williamson
Council tax valuations

The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That is
the only point at which the value of the property has any relationship
with your income.

Then you get the situation where, like my previous home, it doesn't change
hands for ten years, by which time it had almost quadrupled in value. the
one over the road changed hands four time while I was there, and septupled
in value over the same period, before dropping back to five times it's
2001 value. Under the current system, they're both in Band A, and both
sold for about the same price in 2001.

I know a number of people who have been in the same house for over thirty
years. Are you suggesting that their property taxes should be based on a
value from the 1970s?

Why not? Their property value now is determined by what other people can
afford to pay for it, whereas they may well could not now afford to buy it
themselves.

The reality is the whole principle of a property tax is largely "unfair".
But first you must define what criteria for assessing "fairness".

Property is the bricks on the land - CAPITAL. The land is well LAND (LAND &
RESOUCES)

Glasgow is wanting Land Valuation Tax:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=XtZ-uOaLZdA

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , John Williamson
writes
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Jgharston wrote :
Here in the UK the populous threaten revolution at the very
hint of a mention of the suggestion of a revaluation after
20 years.
Yet a tax based on what your house would have been worth in 1991 (even
if it wasn't built then) sounds like something out of the Monster Raving
Loony Party's manifesto. It seems lost on the average Mail reader that
*on average* a revaluation will not affect anyone's council tax,
subject to the revaluation not being used as an excuse to increase
spending.

Ah, but it*will* be used as that excuse. That's what Daily Mail readers
realise that some others don't want to admit.

The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That is
the only point at which the value of the property has any relationship
with your income.

It should be done annually. Land Valuation Tax does that. No other tax. No
income tax, VAT , inheritance tax, etc. Used in the USA, Auss, Taiwan, Hong
Kong, Singapore. LVT took rural, uneducated, backwater, Taiwan to a world
technological power. People's labour (production) is not curtailed.
Enterprise flows.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , John Williamson
writes
hugh wrote:
In message , John Williamson
Council tax valuations

The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO.
That is the only point at which the value of the property has any
relationship with your income.

Then you get the situation where, like my previous home, it doesn't
change hands for ten years, by which time it had almost quadrupled in
value. the one over the road changed hands four time while I was
there, and septupled in value over the same period, before dropping
back to five times it's 2001 value. Under the current system, they're
both in Band A, and both sold for about the same price in 2001.

I know a number of people who have been in the same house for over
thirty years. Are you suggesting that their property taxes should be
based on a value from the 1970s?

Why not? Their property value now is determined by what other people
can afford to pay for it, whereas they may well could not now afford
to buy it themselves.

The reality is the whole principle of a property tax is largely
"unfair". But first you must define what criteria for assessing
"fairness".

Property is the bricks on the land - CAPITAL. The land is well LAND
(LAND & RESOUCES)

Glasgow is wanting Land Valuation Tax:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=XtZ-uOaLZdA


Well just to bring this thread back on topic for a moment, if Scotland
gets independence maybe they can try it out and we'll see how it works.
--
hugh

"djc" wrote in message
...
On 14/03/12 19:39, Adrian Simpson wrote:
In article , hugh
] writes
Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That
is the only point at which the value of the property has any
relationship with your income.

Most of the houses in my street were built in 1939. Up until 5 years
ago, one of them was still lived in by its original occupant. How would
you have valued that one ?

Why not on its 1939 value. It reflects what the owner could afford in
1939. If they stayed there all that time then : it had not *in their
view* appreciated vis a vis any alternative accommodation they could
afford; if it had they could have moved home and realised the implicit
capital gain.

In 1939 it probabaly costed £500, now maybe worth £500,000. What have they
done to earn that 0.5 million?
NOTHING.
Where did the value come from?
From economic growth by community acitivy. That is where land values come
from -not the sky. Land Value Tax "reclaims" that community waelth to pay
for community services. But then no Income tax, VAT, etc. No one takes your
private wealth.

Taxing the hosue on the annual land "value", not the house value, will be
very fair.

hugh wrote
Rod Speed wrote
hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote
hugh wrote
John Williamson

Council tax valuations

The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO.

That is the only point at which the value of the
property has any relationship with your income.

Then you get the situation where, like my previous home, it doesn't
change hands for ten years, by which time it had almost quadrupled
in value. the one over the road changed hands four time while I was
there, and septupled in value over the same period, before dropping
back to five times it's 2001 value. Under the current system, they're both in Band A, and both sold for about the
same price in 2001.

I know a number of people who have been in the same house for over thirty years. Are you suggesting that their
property taxes should be based on a value from the 1970s?

Why not?

Essentially because what the property tax is spent on isnt any
different for those that have owned the place for over 30 years
than it is for those who have only owned it for a year or so.

The tax is mostly spent on social services and education, not services directly related to properties

And that approach has massive downsides.

It is in fact much better to collect what is spent on stuff like that
country wide, not at the local govt level, because that approach
means that the area which dont have as much in the way of
higher valued property dont have anything like the same cash
flow to spend in those areas and they arguably need to spend
a lot more than needs to be spent in an area where the toffs live
who dont need much if anything at all in the way of social services
because they are wealthy enough to pay for what they need.

In spades with education.

Their property value now is determined by what other people can afford to pay for it, whereas they
may well could not now afford to buy it themselves.

Irrelevant to what property tax they should pay.

What is relevant?

What cash needs to be raised and how that burden should
be spread over the different sectors of the tax base.

I personally believe that it makes no sense to be rasing what the
country spends on social services and education via property taxes.

Property taxes should be paying for what those who live in
a particular area get in the way of public roads etc instead.

Tho you can certainly make a case for some level of property taxes,
just because some can arrange their affairs so they have no taxable
income and when they are wealthy, it doesnt really make any sense
that those that can do that shouldnt pay any tax at all.

Corse there arent that many can arrange their affairs
so that they pay no income tax at all, and no VAT either.

Some can tho.

Corse whether it makes any sense to be slugging everyone
property tax just because such a microscopic number than
avoid paying every other tax is another question again.

The reality is the whole principle of a property tax is largely "unfair".

You can say that about any tax. They all have their downsides.

But first you must define what criteria for assessing "fairness".

And thats a hell of a lot easier said than done with tax.

Agreed, but until you do calling something fair or unfair is a bit meaningless,

Not really. Most do understand the concept even when it cant be precisely defined.

but one of the first criteria to be mentioned is usually
ability to pay and council tax pays no regard to that.

Yes, but thats not the only thing that matters with fairness.

Many beliieve that it would be unfair if those who can arrange
their affairs so they pay no income tax or VAT pay no tax at all,
particularly when its mostly the very wealthy that can do that.

And wealth taxes are another can of worms. Why should those
who are careful savers pay a lot more tax than those who just ****
every cent they recieve against the wall at the earliest opportunity ?

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Jgharston wrote

Here in the UK the populous threaten revolution at the very hint of a
mention of the suggestion of a revaluation
after 20 years.

Yet a tax based on what your house would have been worth in 1991
(even if it wasn't built then) sounds like
something out of the
Monster Raving Loony Party's manifesto. It seems lost on the average
Mail reader that *on average* a revaluation
will not affect anyone's council tax, subject to the revaluation not
being
used as an excuse to increase spending.

Ah, but it*will* be used as that excuse. That's what Daily Mail
readers realise that some others don't want to admit.

The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That is
the only point at which the value of the
property has any
relationship with your income.

Its got nothing to do with your income.
Exactly
Everything to
do with the higher value propertys paying more tax.


Why should someone pay more tax just because their property has gone up in
value.

If their land has risen in value, as the value was community created
(economic fact) then a tax on the land must rise. But the house on the land
is exempt for any tax.

You seem not to understand the difference between fixed and liquid assets.

You do not understand land valuation taxation

hugh wrote
Adrian Simpson wrote
hugh ] wrote

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That is the only point at which the value of the
property has any relationship with your income.

Most of the houses in my street were built in 1939. Up until 5 years ago, one of them was still lived in by its
original occupant. How would you have valued that one ?

Well the occupant has paid property tax for 73 years so why worry?

Because they have paid a lot less property tax than
someone who has chosen to move around a lot more.

Should the tax system be encouraging people to stay in massive
great houses that they rattle around in once the kids have left etc ?

Why should the stinking rich that have inherited a massive
mansion get alway with paying bugger all property tax ?

jgharston wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Liverpool with derelict buildings, similar to Glasgow, attempted to
get Land Valuation Taxation through to clear up the dilapidated
buildings a few years ago.

How would Land Valuation Taxation clear up dilapidated buildings?

All land is taxed full value on its "value". That is, if a building is on it
or not it gets taxed. It stops harmful land speculation and hoarding.
Currently a deliberately uninhabited building pay no tax. Harrisburg in the
USA cleared most derelict building very quickly using LVT.

The Jubilee Line extension costed £3.4 bn, but the land values around the
lines went up £14bn - enough for 4 extensions. Landowners got rich in their
sleep. :and values are created by community activity NOT the landowner.

hugh wrote
Rod Speed wrote
hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Jgharston wrote

Here in the UK the populous threaten revolution at the very hint
of a mention of the suggestion of a revaluation after 20 years.

Yet a tax based on what your house would have been worth in 1991 (even if it wasn't built then) sounds like
something out of the Monster Raving Loony Party's manifesto. It seems lost on the average Mail reader that *on
average* a revaluation
will not affect anyone's council tax, subject to the revaluation
not being used as an excuse to increase spending.

Ah, but it*will* be used as that excuse. That's what Daily Mail readers realise that some others don't want to
admit.

The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That is the only point at which the value of the
property has any
relationship with your income.

Its got nothing to do with your income.

Exactly

Everything to do with the higher value propertys paying more tax.

Why should someone pay more tax just because their property has gone up in value.

Essentially because thats the inevitable consequence
of attempting to have the more wealthy pay more tax
than those who can only afford to live in a slum hovel etc.

You seem not to understand the difference between fixed and liquid assets.

Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.

harry wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:12 pm, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Jgharston wrote :

How would Land Valuation Taxation clear up dilapidated buildings?

Because it acts as a holding cost. I remember stories about redundant
factories being bought and demolished or have their roofs removed so
as not to pay rates. In some cases this hastens the inevitable; in
other cases potentially reusable buildings are destroyed.

Here in Australia we have land tax - all properties are revalued
every couple of years and your rate notice shows the land value and
rateable value. In Victoria if you own land other than your own home
whose total value is greater than $250K (£165K) you pay land tax on
a sliding scale of 0.25%-2.25%. If you incur this tax on land that
is not income producing you cannot treat it as a taxable expense: it
increases the cost base of the land for Capital Gains purposes. So
if you own ten BTL houses all rented out, your land tax is set
against the rents for tax purposes. If you buy a piece of land and
are just sitting on it, you pay land tax, no tax relief (until you
sell), an encouragement to bring it back into beneficial use.

The one quirk is that it is a State Tax so BTL owners with lots of
properties can mitigate its effect by buying in more than one state.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Here in Malvern (UK) some local land lord has demolished an empty
"Industrial Unit" to avoid paying local council tax.
He had the rubble piled up and put a notice on top to that effect.
Was in the local papers.

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.

Johannesburg, South Africa has no tax on buildings. The entire property tax
is on land values and makes a super-city froma cvity hat shoudl have dropped
toa town long ago. Mason Gaffney, a highly respected land economist and
Professor of Economics at UC Riverside, visited Johannesburg. This is what
he said about it.

"The miracle of Johannesburg: Jo-burg is a Bootstrap City. It should have
died when its gold mines played out, like a proper mining boomtown; instead
it remains as the economic capital of its nation and half a continent.

"Johannesburg defies most laws of urban economics, e.g. that mines create no
great cities. Explainers still site the mines, but its mines have played
out; it should now be a ghost town. It has no harbor, no water
transportation, nor even any gravity water supply. It is, in fact, on a
ridge top, the Rand or "reef," at an elevation of 5,000 ft. Unlike Chicago
or Boston, it has no sunburst of rail lines, except perhaps what it has
attracted itself. It is "on the main rail line," Explainers say, but so are
1000 miles of other sites. The natural site lacks outstanding amenities, and
certainly can't hold a candle to Cape Town. Jo-burg has no governmental
economic base. Surrounding farmland is poor.

Why Johannesburg? Why is it the largest city, the center of finance,
industry, commerce, and international air travel? As a public finance
economist I may overvalue incentive taxation, but Jo-burg has it. The
property tax is on site value only, and at a high rate: they tell me it is
4%. This is what makes Jo-burg distinctive. Challenge and response: Jo-burg
had to do something right in order to survive, and that is what it did. It
not only survived, it became and remains Number One. Give me a better
explanation and I'll back off. I haven't heard one yet."

jgharston wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
It seems lost on the average Mail reader that *on average*
a revaluation will not affect anyone's council tax, subject
to the revaluation not being used as an excuse to increase
spending.

Ah, but it *will* be used as that excuse. That's what Daily Mail
readers realise that some others don't want to admit.

Even though it's councils that set the tax take, not the Valuation
Office who do the valuations. If you have 60% of properties in
Band A before the revaluation, you'll have 60% of properties in
Band A afterwards. It's up to the council to decide that Band A
should pay £900 instead of £800.

Plus the insanity that the bands are the same across the whole
country! 60% of Sheffield is in Band A. 95% of Westminster is
in Band H. Banding should be on a council-wide basis, as the
tax is raised on a council-wide basis.

Based on Land "values", not the building, it is automatically scalable.

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:54:12 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message , Rod Speed
writes
hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote
hugh wrote
John Williamson

Council tax valuations

The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO.
That is the only point at which the value of the
property has any
relationship with your income.

Then you get the situation where, like my previous home, it doesn't
change hands for ten years, by which time it had almost quadrupled in
value. the one over the road changed hands four time while I was
there, and septupled in value over the same period, before dropping
back to five times it's 2001 value. Under the current system,
they're both in Band A, and both sold for about the
same price in 2001.

I know a number of people who have been in the same house for over
thirty years. Are you suggesting that their property taxes should be
based on a value from the 1970s?

Why not?

Essentially because what the property tax is spent on isnt any
different for those that have owned the place for over 30 years
than it is for those who have only owned it for a year or so.

The tax is mostly spent on social services and education, not services
directly related to properties

It's not quite that simple. The council's income is largely spent on
those things, but the little of the income is from council tax, about
21% for our authority. They get large grants from the government.

My council spends £237m on "Learning and Skills", which I assume is
education, but gets a £176m "Dedicated Schools Grant" from central
government. It gets another £208m from central government, so a total
of £384m out of £624m from central government. That should cover
almost all the education and social services spend. (In the case of
our local authority, the social services spend seems to be largely
imaginary!)

Doctor Drivel wrote:
In 1939 it probabaly costed £500, now maybe worth £500,000. What have they
done to earn that 0.5 million?
NOTHING.

Yes, but in 1939 the occupiers could afford to buy a £500 house. They
probably can't afford to buy a 1/2 million pound house today.

Real-world example: in 1992 I was able to buy the house I live in
for £40,000. There is absolutely no way I can afford to buy it
today. According to neighbouring sales, my house is worth £160,000.
There is absolutely no way I can afford a £160,000 mortgage. My
income has no way near gone up four-fold, so where do I get the
money from to pay a four-fold increase in property tax?

The standard answer is "move somewhere cheaper", but this *IS*
the "somewhere cheaper". If I sell for £160,000, I have to then
spend that £160,000 to buy a replacement place to live.

JGH

jgharston wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

In 1939 it probabaly costed £500, now maybe worth £500,000. What
have they done to earn that 0.5 million?
NOTHING.

Yes, but in 1939 the occupiers could afford to buy a £500 house.
They probably can't afford to buy a 1/2 million pound house today.

Real-world example: in 1992 I was able to buy the house I live in
for £40,000. There is absolutely no way I can afford to buy it
today. According to neighbouring sales, my house is worth £160,000.
There is absolutely no way I can afford a £160,000 mortgage. My
income has no way near gone up four-fold, so where do I get the
money from to pay a four-fold increase in property tax?

The standard answer is "move somewhere cheaper", but this *IS*
the "somewhere cheaper". If I sell for £160,000, I have to then
spend that £160,000 to buy a replacement place to live.

MUCH cheaper in Ireland.

Corse the employment prospects arent brilliant.

jgharston wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
In 1939 it probabaly costed £500, now maybe worth £500,000. What
have they done to earn that 0.5 million?
NOTHING.

Yes, but in 1939 the occupiers could afford to buy a £500 house. They
probably can't afford to buy a 1/2 million pound house today.

You are saying houses should be inflation proof. A 1939 washing machine
may have been £10. You are saying this now should be worth £10,000.

In 1997 a car may have costed £10,000. A house £50,000. The house is now
worth £350,000, the car in A1 condition, £500. The owners of the house,
land, made £300,000 for doing NOTHING.

The value in the land was created by economic activity by the community.
The wealth locked in the land is not the landowners. Land Value tax reclaim
that value to pay for community services and also drops, or eliminates
income tax. The average home owner on £40,000 is $6,000 per year better off
than under the current system. All been calculated.

Bill Wright wrote:
hugh wrote:

Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using
the facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their
premises in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an
outrage. Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.

Or a "region" as in the winter Olympics in France. Manchester tried twice
and failed badly in each bid - events were to be in Liverpool as well.
Sailing was to be in North Wales. Liverpool is a more attractive city and
far more famous city, having a world renowned waterfront, etc. The North
West could apply with Liverpool being the prime city and events all over the
region, inc Manchester. After Manchester's first failure they should have
opted for the North West.

But that will be decades away as the UKs next turn will be way off. But I
think it will be in the North West - but we will all be dead when it occurs.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
You are saying houses should be inflation proof.

That's a difference argument. Arguably, *everything* should be
inflation proof. "In 1939 $50 of groceries would fill three
station wagons. Today I can lift $50 of groceries with one hand.
I must have got stronger."

In 1939 ... A house £50,000. The house is now worth £350,000,
... The owners of the house, land, made £300,000 for doing NOTHING.

They didn't make £300,000. If they sell, they've got to spend that
£300,000 to buy somewhere else, unless they have no further intention
of staying alive. The only amount they would "make" would be any
difference if they managed to find a cheaper house.

JGH

Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:
Such confusion and misinformation. Land Valuation Tax is on the value of
the land only and payable only by the landlord. It cannot be passed onto
the tenant in the rent, as the landlord charges the highest the market
will bare right now. LVT gets land prices down and prevents land
speculation and hoarding.

Of course LVT would get passed onto the tenant, landlords not being
generally known for their massive charitable impulses! And the tenants
would be able to pay more in any case, as instead of paying $X pounds in
rent and $Y pounds in council tax they'd be paying $Z pounds in rent
(where $Z $X).
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On 15/03/2012 01:16, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Such confusion and misinformation. Land Valuation Tax is on the value of
the land only and payable only by the landlord. It cannot be passed onto
the tenant in the rent, as the landlord charges the highest the market
will bare right now. LVT gets land prices down and prevents land
speculation and hoarding.


SO how do you value the plot of land with my house on. It only has value
because it had a house on. But the value is in the house on the land. If
I knocked the house down it would only be worth what agricultural land
went for in the area. Someone may pay more because they may hope to get
planning permission to build a house on the plot. But even you can't be
suggesting taxing something that is only a possibility in the future?

Alistair Gunn wrote:
Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:
Such confusion and misinformation. Land Valuation Tax is on the
value of the land only and payable only by the landlord. It cannot
be passed onto the tenant in the rent, as the landlord charges the
highest the market will bare right now. LVT gets land prices down
and prevents land speculation and hoarding.

Of course LVT would get passed onto the tenant, landlords not being
generally known for their massive charitable impulses!

http://www.landvaluetax.org/frequent...passed-on.html
Why LVT cannot be passed on.

"The answer to this question is very simple if you imagine yourself in the
situation of a landlord.

As a landlord, I already charge as much as I can obtain for my property. I
may decide to charge a bit below top rate so as to avoid it being empty, or
I may stick out for the last penny which means I must accept that the
property will be empty for 10% of the time. Either way, I am getting as much
is I possibly can.

Once LVT is introduced, then I am liable to pay the tax whether the property
is occupied or not. So I have a stronger incentive to set the price
competitively so as to ensure that it is vacant for as short a time as
possible."

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/landlord.html

Why a landlord can not just pass on the cost of LVT to the renter?

If, as claimed by vested interests, the land value tax can be passed on, why
do not these representatives of special privilege pass the measure and allow
their friends to pass it on? The reason is they know that the land values
tax cannot be transferred. - EJ Craigie, former South Australian politician,
circa 1958.

A. THE CLASSICISTS:

1 Though the landlord is in all cases the real contributor, the tax is
commonly advanced by the tenants, to whom the landlord is obliged to allow
it in payment of the rent. - Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations" Book 5, Ch 2

2 A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. There are no means by which he
can shift the burden upon anyone else... A tax on rent, therefore, has no
effect other than the obvious one. It merely takes so much from the landlord
and transfers it to the State. - John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) "Principles of
Political Economy" Book 5, Ch 3, Sect 2

3 The power of transferring a tax from the person who actually pays it to
some other person varies with the object taxed. A tax on rents cannot be
transferred. A tax on commodities is always transferred to the consumer. -
Professor James E Thorold Rogers "Political Economy" 2nd ed Ch 21, p 285

4 A tax levied in proportion to the rent of land, and varying with every
variation of rents... will fall wholly on the landlords. - Walker's
"Political Economy", p 413

5 The incidence of the ground tax, in other words, is on the landlord. He
has no means of shifting it; for, if the tax were to be suddenly abolished,
he would nevertheless be able to extort the same rent, since the ground rent
is fixed solely by the demand of the occupiers. The tax simply diminishes
his profits. - ERA Seligman "Incidence of Taxation" pp 244-245

6 A tax on rent would affect rent only: it would fall only on landlords and
could not be shifted. The landlord could not raise the rent, because he
would have unaltered the difference between the produce obtained from the
least productive land in cultivation and that obtained from land of every
other quality. - David Ricardo "Principles of Political Economy and
Taxation" Ch 10, Sect 62

7 The way taxes raise prices is by increasing the cost of production and
checking supply. But land is not a thing of human production, and taxes upon
rent cannot check supply. Therefore, though a tax upon rent compels owners
to pay more, it gives them no power to obtain more for the use of their
land, as it in no way tends to reduce the supply of land. On the contrary,
by compelling those who hold land for speculation to sell or let for what
they can get, a tax on land values tends to increase the competition between
owners, and thus to reduce the price of land. - Henry George P&P Book 8, Ch
3

B. MODERN ECONOMISTS:

1 Pure land rent is in the nature of a "surplus" which can be taxed without
affecting production incentives. - Paul A Samuelson, Hancock & Wallace,
"Economics - An Introductory Analysis" (Australian Edition) Ch 28 p 595

2 .... the complete inelasticity of the supply of land means that a tax on
land rent has no effect on price or output and therefore does not alter
resource allocation...This outcome is in contrast to property taxes on
buildings.. Jackson & McConnell, "Economics" (2nd Aust Ed pp 540/541)

3 The (land) tax cannot be passed on to consumers... The failure of the
single tax idea does not change the fact that a large increment of value
does accrue to the owners of land, particularly in or near urban areas, due
to the growth of the economy, without the landlord having to contribute any
productive factor services in order to earn it. - Richard G Lipsey, "An
Introduction to Positive Economics" (3rd ed.)

4 Aside from its compelling appeal to the public's sense of justice, a
single tax on land has another advantage over most other forms of taxation -
it is neutral in its effects on production incentives and resource
allocation. - Waud, Hocking, Maxwell & Bonnici, "Economics" (Australian
Edition)

Doctor Drivel wrote
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

Such confusion and misinformation. Land Valuation Tax is on the
value of the land only and payable only by the landlord. It cannot
be passed onto the tenant in the rent, as the landlord charges the
highest the market will bare right now. LVT gets land prices down
and prevents land speculation and hoarding.

Of course LVT would get passed onto the tenant, landlords not being generally known for their massive charitable
impulses!

http://www.landvaluetax.org/frequent...passed-on.html
Why LVT cannot be passed on.

Thats completely off with the ****ing fairys.

"The answer to this question is very simple if you imagine yourself in the situation of a landlord.

Wrong.

As a landlord, I already charge as much as I can obtain for my
property. I may decide to charge a bit below top rate so as to avoid
it being empty, or I may stick out for the last penny which means I must accept that the property will be empty for
10% of the time.

That 10% is straight from someone's arse, we can tell from the smell.

Either way, I am getting as much is I possibly can.

Thats nothing like the real world for most landlords.

Once LVT is introduced, then I am liable to pay the tax whether the property is occupied or not. So I have a stronger
incentive to set the price competitively so as to ensure that it is vacant for as short a time as possible."

How odd that it doesnt happen like that in Australia thats
had an LVT for centurys now.

And even with a new LVT in Britain, it would apply to all
landlords, so they would all just hike the rents to cover the
new LVT and there wouldnt be a damned thing the tenants
could do about that because all landlords would be doing that.

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/landlord.html

Why a landlord can not just pass on the cost of LVT to the renter?

Another fool that hasnt got a ****ing clue.

If, as claimed by vested interests,

Usual utterly bogus line. As claimed by those with a clue, actually.

the land value tax can be passed on, why do not these representatives of special privilege pass the measure and allow
their friends to pass it on?

Because its always hard to get any major change thru the system, stupid.

The reason is they know that the land values tax cannot be transferred.

Corse it can be, and is all the time in places with an LVT.

- EJ Craigie, former South Australian politician, circa 1958.

Just a fool that never did have a clue. He didnt last long, for a reason.

A. THE CLASSICISTS:

1 Though the landlord is in all cases the real contributor, the tax is commonly advanced by the tenants, to whom the
landlord is obliged to allow it in payment of the rent. - Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations" Book 5, Ch 2

Doesnt say a damned thing about your silly claim that it cant be passed on.

2 A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. There are no means by which he can shift the burden upon anyone else...

Mindlessly silly.

A tax on rent, therefore, has no effect other than the obvious one. It merely takes so much from the landlord and
transfers it to the State. - John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) "Principles of Political Economy" Book 5, Ch 3, Sect 2

Even sillier.

3 The power of transferring a tax from the person who actually pays it to some other person varies with the object
taxed. A tax on rents cannot be transferred.

Corse it can by increasing the rents.

A tax on commodities is always transferred to the consumer. - Professor James E Thorold Rogers "Political Economy"
2nd ed Ch 21, p 285

4 A tax levied in proportion to the rent of land, and varying with every variation of rents... will fall wholly on the
landlords. -
Walker's "Political Economy", p 413

Still just plain wrong.

none of the rest of this **** worth bothering with

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"djc" wrote in message
...
On 14/03/12 19:39, Adrian Simpson wrote:
In article , hugh
] writes
Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That
is the only point at which the value of the property has any
relationship with your income.

Most of the houses in my street were built in 1939. Up until 5 years
ago, one of them was still lived in by its original occupant. How would
you have valued that one ?

Why not on its 1939 value. It reflects what the owner could afford in
1939. If they stayed there all that time then : it had not *in their
view* appreciated vis a vis any alternative accommodation they could
afford; if it had they could have moved home and realised the implicit
capital gain.

In 1939 it probabaly costed £500, now maybe worth £500,000. What have
they done to earn that 0.5 million?
NOTHING.
They haven't gained a penny until they actually sell the house - then
they have to buy somewhere else to live. Alternatively their estate will
be liable for inheritance tax eventually.
Where did the value come from?
From economic growth by community acitivy. That is where land values
come from -not the sky. Land Value Tax "reclaims" that community
waelth to pay for community services. But then no Income tax, VAT, etc.
No one takes your private wealth.

Taxing the hosue on the annual land "value", not the house value, will
be very fair.


How do you define fairness?
--
hugh

hugh wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"djc" wrote in message
...
On 14/03/12 19:39, Adrian Simpson wrote:
In article , hugh
] writes
Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO.
That is the only point at which the value of the property has any
relationship with your income.

Most of the houses in my street were built in 1939. Up until 5
years ago, one of them was still lived in by its original
occupant. How would you have valued that one ?

Why not on its 1939 value. It reflects what the owner could afford
in 1939. If they stayed there all that time then : it had not *in
their view* appreciated vis a vis any alternative accommodation
they could afford; if it had they could have moved home and
realised the implicit capital gain.

In 1939 it probabaly costed £500, now maybe worth £500,000. What have
they done to earn that 0.5 million?
NOTHING.

They haven't gained a penny until they actually sell the house

They can get a loan/remortgage to tap into the wealth in the land under the
house. If they do then the windfall for doing NOTHING comes on the sale.
Landowning is a giant sluice for community created wealth locked up in land.

- then they have to buy somewhere else to live. Alternatively their
estate
will be liable for inheritance tax eventually.

When they are dead. People usually do need a palace to live when selling a
house.

Where did the value come from?
From economic growth by community acitivy. That is where land values
come from -not the sky. Land Value Tax "reclaims" that community
waelth to pay for community services. But then no Income tax, VAT,
etc. No one takes your private wealth.

Taxing the hosue on the annual land "value", not the house value,
will be very fair.

How do you define fairness?

If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for public services?
By levying a charge on the "value" of land. People who live in valuable
locations will pay much more than those who live in less expensive
properties. That's fair. It also happens to be the most efficient way to
fund the service we all share in common.

THE PROBLEM

Three million children today are living in poverty. Successions of
governments, of different parties, can't change this due to the tax system.
Children born to the poorest families suffer little or no social mobility.

Are politicians to blame?

The biggest scam in history was instigated on the people centuries ago by
the Lords, Barons and Knights of the land. Governments used the tax system
to milk the poor.

Why did they do it?

To enrich the people who own land. It is operated by all democratic
governments around the world. The biggest winners are those who own land or
homes in the best locations.

People who rent pay rent to landlords and taxes to the government. People
who rent pay taxes to fund the service that they receive: police, rail,
roads, army, etc. That sounds fair. They pay for what they receive.

Britain's top earners pay on average £1.25 million in taxes in their
lifetime. The people who rent their homes are generally in the lowest income
bracket. Over their working lives the poor pay over £0.25 million in taxes.
The rich on average pay 5 times more in taxes.

That sounds fair. Doesn't it?

Income tax is the more you earn, the more you pay. Called Progressive taxes.
Progressive taxes has exactly the opposite effect.

Rich people complain that they pay a lot of money to the government. But,
the government pays it all back to them.

How do they do this?

Governments spend our tax money on infrastructure, such as: Schools
Universities Hospitals Rail networks Roads This infrastructure raises the
productivity of the economy resulting in economic growth. Because of the way
the market economy works, those economic gains are crystallised as land
values. Then these gains surface as windfalls or capital gains in the
property market.

Those capital gains are not shared out equally amongst all of us, taxpayers
who rent their homes for example, are excluded.

The windfalls are pocketed by people who own land. The rises in property
values more than offsets the taxes they pay into the public purse. Then who
pays for the services the rich people use? The families on the lowest
incomes.

Every increase in house value for top earners offsets any tax they
contribute. During boom times it's possible to claw back a lifetimes taxes
in just three years. Meanwhile...the lowest earners and those who pay rent,
pay more overall.

Families on the lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich.

Is that fair?

There is only one way to make the tax system fair. Parliament has to tell
the taxman to stop collecting taxes from people's wages.

We need a kind of tax reform that Winston Churchill and Lloyd George nearly
introduced in Parliament 100 years ago. But, the landlords blocked them.

The only war Winston Churchill lost was the war against the British
landlords. If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for public
services? By levying a charge on the value of land. People who live in
valuable locations will pay much more than those who live in less expensive
properties. That's fair. It also happens to be the most efficient way to
fund the service we all share in common.

THE SOLUTION

There is a simple solution to this injustice.

We should place the cost of public services on the values of land. Owners
with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who rent their
homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be able to claw
back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services they receive and
we are all treated as equals

Doctor Drivel wrote
hugh wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote
djc wrote
Adrian Simpson wrote
hugh ] wrote

Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That is the only point at which the value of the
property has any relationship with your income.

Most of the houses in my street were built in 1939. Up until 5 years ago, one of them was still lived in by its
original occupant. How would you have valued that one ?

Why not on its 1939 value. It reflects what the owner could afford
in 1939. If they stayed there all that time then : it had not *in
their view* appreciated vis a vis any alternative accommodation
they could afford; if it had they could have moved home and
realised the implicit capital gain.

In 1939 it probabaly costed £500, now maybe worth £500,000. What
have they done to earn that 0.5 million?
NOTHING.

They haven't gained a penny until they actually sell the house

They can get a loan/remortgage to tap into the wealth in the land under the house. If they do then the windfall for
doing NOTHING

They arent doing nothing, they are paying property taxes on that property.

comes on the sale. Landowning is a giant sluice for community created wealth locked up in land.

And arseholes like you want to the govt to tax that off them.

No thanks.

- then they have to buy somewhere else to live. Alternatively their estate will be liable for inheritance tax
eventually.

When they are dead. People usually do need a palace to live when selling a house.

They dont NEED a house either, they could live in a tent or caravan. No thanks.

Where did the value come from?
From economic growth by community acitivy. That is where land values come from -not the sky. Land Value Tax
"reclaims" that community waelth to pay for community services. But then no Income tax, VAT, etc. No one takes your
private wealth.

Taxing the hosue on the annual land "value", not the house value, will be very fair.

How do you define fairness?

If we cancel the tax on people's wages,

No one is actually that stupid.

how do we pay for public services?

By not cancelling the tax on people's wages, stupid.

By levying a charge on the "value" of land.

No country is actually stupid enough to do JUST that.

There might just be a reason for that.

People who live in valuable locations will pay much more than those who live in less expensive properties.

Why is that any better than a progressive income tax system ?

It isnt, which might just be why no country is that stupid.

That's fair.

Nope, not when they grew up in that place and it happened to see
land values go thru the roof and they dont have the income to pay
your utterly obscene tax slug, most obviously with the retired.

Nothing 'fair' about slugging them when they have enough trouble even
paying for their day to day expenses like food and electricity and water.

It also happens to be the most efficient way to fund the service we all share in common.

Even sillier. Its MUCH more efficient to do that via income tax
where you dont have to fart around attempting to work out
what the land would be worth if it had no buildings on it etc.

That isnt even possible in established citys with the bulk of the land.

Have fun putting a value on the land that Buck House sits on, or St Pauls either.

THE PROBLEM

Three million children today are living in poverty.

Thats a lie.

And those that do have a considerably worse standard of living
than most are that way mostly because their stupid 'parents' were
actually stupid enough to have a lot more kids than their economic
circumstances can provide a decent standard of living for.

Why should the state be slugging those who happen to end up
living in a house that happens to be on land thats worth a lot
more than it used to be worth be savagely slugged with an
LVT that produces a situation where they are in much more
poverty than the kids of those stupid parents ?

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like 'fair' in fact.

Successions of governments, of different parties, can't change this due to the tax system.

Even sillier.

Children born to the poorest families suffer little or no social mobility.

That is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

They ALL have the opportunity to get a decent education and a decent job.

Are politicians to blame?

The biggest scam in history was instigated on the people centuries ago by the Lords, Barons and Knights of the land.
Governments used the tax system to milk the poor.

And then the world moved on and we invented a decent welfare
system that does in fact allow those of 'the poor' to bludge on
welfare for their entire 'lives' if they choose to do that.

Those whose entire income is welfare do in fact pay **** all in
the way of taxes except on the stuff like cigarettes and alcohol etc.

Why did they do it?

To enrich the people who own land.

And then the world moved on and we invented govt housing and welfare.

It is operated by all democratic governments around the world.

Not anymore. You're mindlessly living in the past of more than a century ago now.

The biggest winners are those who own land or homes in the best locations.

Thats wrong too. Those who have lots of kids and choose to bludge on
welfare for life and for the life of their kids etc end up with MUCH more
money in total than those who just have a house on a modest housing block.

People who rent pay rent to landlords and taxes to the government.
People who rent pay taxes to fund the service that they receive: police, rail, roads, army, etc. That sounds fair.
They pay for what they receive.

Not if their welfare pays the rent they dont.

Britain's top earners pay on average £1.25 million in taxes in their lifetime.

And those on welfare can end up with rather more than
that in their lifetime and the lifetimes of their kids that
choose to bludge on welfare if they spawn enough kids.

The people who rent their homes are generally in the lowest income bracket.

Plenty who rent arent.

Over their working lives the poor pay over £0.25 million in taxes.

Depends entirely on how you define 'the poor'

The rich on average pay 5 times more in taxes.

That number is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.

The real 'poor' those whose entire income is
welfare, dont pay anything like that in taxes
even if they spend it all on cigarettes and grog.

That sounds fair. Doesn't it?

Income tax is the more you earn, the more you pay. Called Progressive
taxes. Progressive taxes has exactly the opposite effect.

That is a bare faced lie.

Rich people complain that they pay a lot of money to the government. But, the government pays it all back to them.

That is a bare faced lie.

How do they do this?

Governments spend our tax money on infrastructure, such as: Schools Universities Hospitals Rail networks Roads

Govts actually spend FAR more on welfare
and services and employing civil servants etc.

This infrastructure raises the productivity of the economy resulting in economic growth. Because of the way the market
economy works, those economic gains are crystallised as land values.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Most of it actually ends up in wages and salarys.

Then these gains surface as windfalls or capital gains in the property market.

Not necessarily when inflation adjusted.

Those capital gains are not shared out equally amongst all of us, taxpayers who rent their homes for example, are
excluded.

Thats their problem. They are too stupid to buy
the house and rent instead, their problem.

The windfalls are pocketed by people who own land.

Which is now most of us.

The rises in property values more than offsets the taxes they pay into the public purse.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Then who pays for the services the rich people use?

They do. They dont use govt services much at all.

The families on the lowest incomes.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Families on the lowest incomes, those whose entire
income is welfare, in fact pay **** all in the way of
taxes at all, just on cigarettes and grog basically and
a few other terminal stupiditys like soft drink etc.

Every increase in house value for top earners offsets any tax they contribute.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

They dont even see the increase in land value at all, even if they
sell the property, they have to buy another at the same land price.

During boom times it's possible to claw back a lifetimes taxes in just three years.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

They still have to live somewhere, stupid.

Meanwhile...the lowest earners and those who pay rent, pay more overall.

And those whose entire income is welfare dont.

Families on the lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Those on the lowest incomes are those whose entire
income is welfare and they pay **** all in taxes.

Is that fair?

The reality, completely different from your bare faced lies, certainly is.

Is very fair that those on the lowest incomes whose entire
incomes are welfare pay very little in the way of taxes at all.

There is only one way to make the tax system fair.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Parliament has to tell the taxman to stop collecting taxes from people's wages.

How odd that no one parliament has ever been that stupid.

There might just be a reason for that.

We need a kind of tax reform that Winston Churchill and Lloyd George nearly introduced in Parliament 100 years ago.

Those were the fools that returned to the gold standard and the
wrong price and damned near killed the economy in the process.

But, the landlords blocked them.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

'the landlords' are a microscopic part of the voters, stupid.

The only war Winston Churchill lost was the war against the British landlords.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

He also lost the economic war when he was actually stupid
enough to return to the gold standard at the wrong price
and damned near killed the economy in the process.

If we cancel the tax on people's wages,

No country has actually been that stupid.

Even Hong Kong before it was handed back to china wasnt actually THAT stupid.

how do we pay for public services? By levying a charge on the value of land. People who live in valuable locations
will pay much more than those who live in less expensive properties.

So those who are retired and have little income at all, who happen
to have lived in that house for 50 years or so, will be financially crippled.

That's fair.

Like hell it is.

It also happens to be the most efficient way to fund the service we all share in common.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

THE SOLUTION

There is a simple solution to this injustice.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

We should place the cost of public services on the values of land. Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay
more than those who rent their homes.

So those who have had enough of a clue to buy their own
home would be severely punished by your stupid system.

No thanks.

And the renters would be paying for that land tax in the rent they pay too.

Owners with houses in valuable locations
wouldn't be able to claw back their taxes.

Corse they can. They just move to a country that isnt that stupid.

That way everybody pays for the services they receive and we are all treated as equals

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Those whose entire income is welfare do nothing of the sort.

On 15/03/2012 23:18, Doctor Drivel wrote:

THE PROBLEM

Three million children today are living in poverty. Successions of
governments, of different parties, can't change this due to the tax
system. Children born to the poorest families suffer little or no social
mobility.

Are politicians to blame?

The biggest scam in history was instigated on the people centuries ago
by the Lords, Barons and Knights of the land. Governments used the tax
system to milk the poor.

Why did they do it?

To enrich the people who own land. It is operated by all democratic
governments around the world. The biggest winners are those who own land
or homes in the best locations.

People who rent pay rent to landlords and taxes to the government.
People who rent pay taxes to fund the service that they receive: police,
rail, roads, army, etc. That sounds fair. They pay for what they receive.

Britain's top earners pay on average £1.25 million in taxes in their
lifetime. The people who rent their homes are generally in the lowest
income bracket. Over their working lives the poor pay over £0.25 million
in taxes. The rich on average pay 5 times more in taxes.

That sounds fair. Doesn't it?

Income tax is the more you earn, the more you pay. Called Progressive
taxes. Progressive taxes has exactly the opposite effect.

Rich people complain that they pay a lot of money to the government.
But, the government pays it all back to them.

How do they do this?

Governments spend our tax money on infrastructure, such as: Schools
Universities Hospitals Rail networks Roads This infrastructure raises
the productivity of the economy resulting in economic growth. Because of
the way the market economy works, those economic gains are crystallised
as land values. Then these gains surface as windfalls or capital gains
in the property market.

Those capital gains are not shared out equally amongst all of us,
taxpayers who rent their homes for example, are excluded.

The windfalls are pocketed by people who own land. The rises in property
values more than offsets the taxes they pay into the public purse. Then
who pays for the services the rich people use? The families on the
lowest incomes.

Every increase in house value for top earners offsets any tax they
contribute. During boom times it's possible to claw back a lifetimes
taxes in just three years. Meanwhile...the lowest earners and those who
pay rent, pay more overall.

Families on the lowest incomes subsidise the lives of the rich.

Is that fair?

There is only one way to make the tax system fair. Parliament has to
tell the taxman to stop collecting taxes from people's wages.

We need a kind of tax reform that Winston Churchill and Lloyd George
nearly introduced in Parliament 100 years ago. But, the landlords
blocked them.

The only war Winston Churchill lost was the war against the British
landlords. If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for
public services? By levying a charge on the value of land. People who
live in valuable locations will pay much more than those who live in
less expensive properties. That's fair. It also happens to be the most
efficient way to fund the service we all share in common.

THE SOLUTION

There is a simple solution to this injustice.

We should place the cost of public services on the values of land.
Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who
rent their homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be
able to claw back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services
they receive and we are all treated as equals



Are you JohnLVT? Or are you just plagiarizing something that he has
written? It is customary to provide references when quoting.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4269820

"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
THE SOLUTION

There is a simple solution to this injustice.

We should place the cost of public services on the values of land.
Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who
rent their homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be
able to claw back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services
they receive and we are all treated as equals

Are you JohnLVT? Or are you just plagiarizing something that he has
written? It is customary to provide references when quoting.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4269820

I never got it from there. Fred Harrison, where I assume he got it.

On 16/03/2012 09:47, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
THE SOLUTION

There is a simple solution to this injustice.

We should place the cost of public services on the values of land.
Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who
rent their homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be
able to claw back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services
they receive and we are all treated as equals

Are you JohnLVT? Or are you just plagiarizing something that he has
written? It is customary to provide references when quoting.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4269820


I never got it from there. Fred Harrison, where I assume he got it.

In which case do you think that Fred Harrison would appreciate it if you
attributed what you wrote to him instead of passing it off as your own work?

"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
On 16/03/2012 09:47, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
THE SOLUTION

There is a simple solution to this injustice.

We should place the cost of public services on the values of land.
Owners with houses in valuable locations would pay more than those who
rent their homes. Owners with houses in valuable locations wouldn't be
able to claw back their taxes. That way everybody pays for the services
they receive and we are all treated as equals

Are you JohnLVT? Or are you just plagiarizing something that he has
written? It is customary to provide references when quoting.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4269820


I never got it from there. Fred Harrison, where I assume he got it.

In which case do you think that Fred Harrison would appreciate it if you
attributed what you wrote to him instead of passing it off as your own
work?

It is clear it is pasted. I first C&P's it two years ago and 6 times since.
Fred doesn't need attributes. He doesn't care. Nice guy. A great public
speaker. Read his book Ricardo Law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xFxS-BIEs

On 16/03/2012 12:15, Doctor Drivel wrote:

I first C&P's it two years ago and 6 times since.

Repetitive, aren't you?

Andrew May wrote:
On 16/03/2012 12:15, Doctor Drivel wrote:

I first C&P's it two years ago and 6 times since.

Repetitive, aren't you?

No. Did you understand it first time round? At what point did the penny
drop? No.3? No. 4?

Doctor Drivel wrote:
http://www.landvaluetax.org/frequent...why-lvt-cannot...
Why LVT cannot be passed on.

Nope. As a landlord I can chose to charge £400 a month, and the tenant
pay the &85 council tax (local property tax), or I can chose to charge
£485
a month and *I* pay the council tax. In either case, the tenant is
paying
£485 a month to occupy the property.

JGH

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for public
services? By levying a charge on the "value" of land. People who live
in valuable locations will pay much more than those who live in less
expensive properties. That's fair.
Why?
--
hugh

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

Andrew May wrote:
On 16/03/2012 12:15, Doctor Drivel wrote:

I first C&P's it two years ago and 6 times since.

Repetitive, aren't you?
No. Did you understand it first time round? At what point did the
penny drop? No.3? No. 4?

Meaningless. drivel is drivel and stays drivel (capitalise the drivels
at your whim - all combinations are valid).

LOL
--
hugh

jgharston wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
http://www.landvaluetax.org/frequent...why-lvt-cannot...
Why LVT cannot be passed on.

Nope. As a landlord I can chose to charge £400 a month, and the tenant
pay the &85 council tax (local property tax), or I can chose to charge
£485
a month and *I* pay the council tax. In either case, the tenant is
paying
£485 a month to occupy the property.

Read what I posted. LVT cannot be passed on. It was quite clear.

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

Andrew May wrote:
On 16/03/2012 12:15, Doctor Drivel wrote:

I first C&P's it two years ago and 6 times since.

Repetitive, aren't you?

No. Did you understand it first time round? At what point did the
penny drop? No.3? No. 4?

Meaningless.

Another one with ZERO comprehension.,

hugh wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

If we cancel the tax on people's wages, how do we pay for public
services? By levying a charge on the "value" of land. People who live
in valuable locations will pay much more than those who live in less
expensive properties. That's fair.

Why?

Because the value of land is higher in more expensive locations where the
more wealthy live. Get it?