Doctor Drivel wrote
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.

No point, what you posted is drivel. Unsurprisingly.

LVT cannot be passed on.

Mindlessly silly.

It was quite clear.

It was drivel.

Of course it can be passed on, particularly when all landlords are paying it.

Just because some fool claims it cant be passed on doesnt make it gospel.

Doctor Drivel wrote
hugh wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

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.

Nothing fair about that, particular for those who have organised
their affiars so that what they get cash wise in retirement does
cover their outgoings and taxes but wont cover your stupid tax.

Fortunately NOT ONE country in the entire world has actually
been stupid enough to have just an LVT as the only tax.

There might just be a reason for that.

Get it?

Nothing to get, its a lie.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...


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.



Who would want to buy land if they are going to pay tax and have no hope of
actually using it?
You would have to change planning law so it can be used for something if its
primary use isn't wanted.
Its planning law that screws up developments now and it is what forces
people to rip roofs off buildings because nobody wants the building and the
owner can't use it for something else if the planners get in the way as they
invariably do.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
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.

But that is exactly what the councils did when the poll tax was introduced
and blamed the increase on the poll tax.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
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?
But why is that fair?
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
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.
That is a purely artificial restriction which could be removed at any
time.
--
hugh

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

Agreed, but until you do calling something fair or unfair is a bit
meaningless, but one of the first criteria to be mentioned is usually
ability to pay and council tax pays no regard to that.

Council tax is one of the things the benefits system pays if you can't
afford it.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...


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.

Who would want to buy land if they are going to pay tax and have no hope
of actually using it?

If he has not hope of the land productively using it, it will not buy. Get
it?

You would have to change planning law so it can be used for something if
its primary use isn't wanted.

That is usually the case.

Its planning law that screws up developments now and it is what forces
people to rip roofs off buildings because nobody wants the building and
the owner can't use it for something else if the planners get in the way
as they invariably do.

Planning leave a lot to be desired. The planning system was geared as a mean
on population control, not to promote high quality buildings and
environments.

The prime problem is land is being hoarded by speculators - what brought
about the 2008 crash. Every country that has implemented Land Valuation
Taxation has seen a rise in the economy and lowering of land/house prices .
The prices remain static as the economy grows around the land.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

Agreed, but until you do calling something fair or unfair is a bit
meaningless, but one of the first criteria to be mentioned is usually
ability to pay and council tax pays no regard to that.

Council tax is one of the things the benefits system pays if you can't
afford it.

It would be the same with Land Vauation Tax exemptions or delayed until
death or sale of land.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote
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.

No point, what you posted is drivel. Unsurprisingly.

LVT cannot be passed on.

Mindlessly silly.

There must a lot of economists who are fools around then - a whole raft of
professors are below. The land lord charges what the market will bare - as
he does right now. The level that will be passed on is small. If LVT is
introduced and he raises the rent then it implies he was not charging the
highest rent he can get - which does not happen. It hasn't anywhere that a
LVT has been introduced. Read Winston Churchill on it.

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)

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

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

That is a purely artificial restriction which could be removed at any
time.

What are you on about?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

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.,

With you, drivel,

I do detect drivel - all the time.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote
hugh wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

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.

Nothing fair about that,

It is fair. Those with more wealth pay more. Tax wealth not Income. The
rich tend to have lost of "wealth" while the poor do not. The poor only have
their income.

The overhead on HMG's total tax revenue gathering is 1/3. One third of what
the get is the collection overhead. Ridiculous.

Fortunately NOT ONE country in the entire world has actually
been stupid enough to have just an LVT as the only tax.

Wrong......

"The German protectorate of Jiaozhou Bay (also known as Kiaochow) in China
fully implemented Georgist policy. Its sole source of government revenue was
the land value tax of six percent which it levied on its territory. The
German government had previously had economic problems with its African
colonies caused by land speculation. One of the main aims in using the land
value tax in Jiaozhou Bay was to eliminate such speculation, an aim which
was entirely achieved. The colony existed as a German protectorate from 1898
until 1914 when it was seized by Japan. In 1922 it was returned to China."

Sun Yat-sen was in Jiaozhou Bay and was impressed by the Single Tax and was
implemented it on creation of Taiwan.

Sun Yat-sen declared:
'. to equalise the financial resources of Society. Our first aim is to be
the solution of the land problem.'
Sun Yat-sen then went on to show how this could be done:
'. the government makes two regulations: first, that it will collect taxes
according to the declared value (by the landowners) of the land; second,
that it can also buy the land at the same price.'

Sun Yat-sen, during his period of power, he employed a German, Dr Ludwig
Schramier, to prepare land reform proposals based on outlines he had given
in Jiaozhou Bay. Dr Schramier had been the former governor of the German
colony of Kiao Chan with its seaport of Qingdao (Tsingtao).

During his period of governorship, Dr Schramier had raised revenue from his
tiny colony (20 sq. miles) from leasing land and drawing ground rent in a
Henry George manner. Included in this were escalating penalties for land
left unused. During the 18 years it was under his control, the colony made
rapid progress in developing its infrastructure. This stopped when the
Japanese occupied the territory and returned it to traditional landownership
control.

Landowners are rich and have power, and care not a jot about the rest of us.
The British aristocracy treat the UK like a private estate.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
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?

But why is that fair?

Because the value of land is higher in more expensive locations where the
more wealthy live. Economic growth created by the community that soaks into
the land crystallizes as land values. What ever the value, the community
created it and reclaims it. Get it? ;-)

It is fair. Those with more wealth pay more. Tax wealth not Income. The
rich tend to have lost of "wealth" while the poor do not. The poor only have
their income.

Doctor Drivel wrote
dennis@home wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

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.

Have fun explaining why it doesnt in Australia which
has had an LVT for more than a century now.

Who would want to buy land if they are going to pay tax and have no hope of actually using it?

If he has not hope of the land productively using it, it will not buy.

Have fun explaining why they still do in Australia
which has had an LVT for more than a century now.

Get it?

Nothing get, you dont have a ****ing clue about the basics.

You would have to change planning law so it can be used for something if its primary use isn't wanted.

That is usually the case.

Its planning law that screws up developments now and it is what forces people to rip roofs off buildings because
nobody wants the building and the owner can't use it for something else if the planners get in the way as they
invariably do.

Planning leave a lot to be desired. The planning system was geared as
a mean on population control, not to promote high quality buildings
and environments.

The prime problem is land is being hoarded by speculators

Wrong, as always.

- what brought about the 2008 crash.

Like hell it did.

Every country that has implemented Land Valuation Taxation has seen a rise in the economy and lowering of land/house
prices .

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Australia has in fact some of the highest land/house prices in the entire ****ing world.

The prices remain static as the economy grows around the land.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Australian land prices are nothing even remotely resembling anything like static.

The only think you did get right is the pathetic excuse for a nick that you cower behind.

Doctor Drivel wrote
dennis@home wrote
hugh ] wrote

Agreed, but until you do calling something fair or unfair is a bit
meaningless, but one of the first criteria to be mentioned is
usually ability to pay and council tax pays no regard to that.

Council tax is one of the things the benefits system pays if you can't afford it.

It would be the same with Land Vauation Tax exemptions or delayed until death or sale of land.

If that is done, there goes any useful result from the LVT, stupid.

And if you delay the LVT until the land is sold, no one will ever sell,
because then they dont have the money to buy the new one, stupid.

You'd get the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve with an LVT.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, living up to its pathetic excuse for a nick.

Doctor Drivel wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote
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.

No point, what you posted is drivel. Unsurprisingly.

LVT cannot be passed on.

Mindlessly silly.

There must a lot of economists who are fools around then - a whole raft of professors are below.

Usual stupid academics who havent got a ****ing clue.

Have fun actually explaining why, when an LVT is introduced, the
landlords cant just jack up the rents so that the renter pays the LVT.

Since the LVT applys to all landlords, the renters cant
even just move to a landlord who doesnt pass on the LVT.

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.

The land lord charges what the market will bare - as he does right now.

Yes, but when a new LVT is introduced, and all landlords pass it on
to their renters, as they will certainly do because they arent going to
just accept the fact that the amount that ends up in their pockes will
drop if they dont, the renters get to like that or lump it because ALL
the landlords will be doing that.

The level that will be passed on is small.

Easy to claim. Have fun actually stubstantiating that claim.

If LVT is introduced and he raises the rent then it implies
he was not charging the highest rent he can get

It implys nothing of the sort when a new LVT is introduced.

- which does not happen. It hasn't anywhere that a LVT has been introduced.

That is a bare faced pig ignorant lie. That is precisely what happens
in Australia which has had an LVT for more than a century now, the
renters pay the LVT because otherwise the landlord would not get
the return they want on what they are renting.

Read Winston Churchill on it.

**** Churchill. That fool damned near bankrupted Britain when he
was stupid enough to return to the gold standard at the wrong price.

And produced countless corpses with his terminal stupidity of Gallipoli.

All the rest of your drivel you have posted more than once flushed where it belongs.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
hugh wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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.

Nothing fair about that,

It is fair.

Says he carefully deleting from the quoting what
I actually said about it not being anything like fair.

That is flagrantly dishonest.

Here is what I ACTUALLY said.

Nothing fair about that, particular for those who have organised
their affiars so that what they get cash wise in retirement does
cover their outgoings and taxes but wont cover your stupid tax.

Those with more wealth pay more.

You aint established that those do have wealth, you flagrantly dishonest arsehole.

Tax wealth not Income.

NOT ONE country in the entire world is actually stupid enough to do it like that.

There might just be a reason for that.

The rich tend to have lost of "wealth"

Those that I rubbed your flagrantly dishonest nose in dont, arsehole.

while the poor do not.

There are more than just those two in any country, fool.

The poor only have their income.

The real poor only have welfare.

The overhead on HMG's total tax revenue gathering is 1/3.

That is a bare faced lie and you previously lied that that was
the overhead in the income tax system. Its a bare faced lie.

One third of what the get is the collection overhead.

That is a bare faced lie and you previously lied that that was
the overhead in the income tax system. Its a bare faced lie.

Ridiculous.

Lie in your case.

Fortunately NOT ONE country in the entire world has actually
been stupid enough to have just an LVT as the only tax.

Wrong......

Nope.

"The German protectorate of Jiaozhou Bay (also known as Kiaochow) in China fully implemented Georgist policy.

That aint a COUNTRY, fool.

Its sole source of government revenue was the land value tax of six percent which it levied on its territory.

Another bare faced lie.

And thats a full CENTURY AGO anyway.

There's a reason that approach was binned.

The German government had previously had economic problems with its African colonies caused by land speculation.

Another bare faced lie.

One of the main aims in using the land value tax in Jiaozhou Bay was to eliminate such speculation,

And that didnt happen.

an aim which was entirely achieved.

Another bare faced lie.

The colony existed as a German protectorate from 1898 until 1914 when it was seized by Japan. In 1922 it was returned
to China."

And was NEVER a COUNTRY.

Sun Yat-sen was in Jiaozhou Bay and was impressed by the Single Tax and was implemented it on creation of Taiwan.

And then that fool was flushed where he belonged.

Sun Yat-sen declared:
'. to equalise the financial resources of Society. Our first aim is to be the solution of the land problem.'

And they failed dismally at that.

Which might just be why the communists won, stupid.

Sun Yat-sen then went on to show how this could be done:

PIgs arse he did.

'. the government makes two regulations: first, that it will collect taxes according to the declared value (by the
landowners) of the land;

Barking mad. That nothing like a real LVT. The V is there for a reason, stupid.

second, that it can also buy the land at the same price.'

Sun Yat-sen, during his period of power,

Before he was flushed where he belonged.

he employed a German, Dr Ludwig Schramier, to prepare land reform proposals based on outlines he had given in Jiaozhou
Bay. Dr Schramier had been the former governor of the German colony of Kiao Chan with its seaport of
Qingdao (Tsingtao).

During his period of governorship, Dr Schramier had raised revenue from his tiny colony (20 sq. miles) from leasing
land and drawing ground rent in a Henry George manner.

Nothing like an LVT.

Included in this were escalating penalties for land left unused.

While that might make some sense in a tiny little 20 sq mile town, it doesnt for a country.

During the 18 years it was under his control, the colony made rapid progress in developing its infrastructure.

No better than anywhere else.

Nothing like Shanghai did.

This stopped when the Japanese occupied the territory and returned it to traditional landownership control.

Landowners are rich and have power,

The ones in my example arent and dont, liar.

and care not a jot about the rest of us.

Even sillier.

The British aristocracy treat the UK like a private estate.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, comrade.

Doctor Drivel wrote
hugh ] wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote
hugh wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

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?

But why is that fair?

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

Your stupid proposal taxes ALL land owners, fool.

And if you are stuipid enough to have JUST and LVT, you have to have a MASSIVE
LVT on everyone who owns any land and those who arent wealthy will be destituted.

NOTHING fair about that.

Economic growth created by the community that
soaks into the land crystallizes as land values.

Even sillier.

What ever the value, the community created it and reclaims it.

Seizes it, actually.

Get it? ;-)

Nothing to get, its a bare faced lie.

It is fair.

Another bare faced lie.

Those with more wealth pay more.

Those with their only 'weath' as the land their house is built on would be
destituted and those who dont even have much income because they are
retired or out of work etc would be kicked out of their house to pay your
stupid LVT thats the only tax the govt imposes on anything.

NOTHING fair about that.

Tax wealth not Income.

NOT ONE country in the entire world is actually that stupid.

The rich tend to have lost of "wealth" while the poor do not.

There might just be more than the rich and poor in any real economy.

The poor only have their income.

The real poor actually have welfare which even if its taxed, came from the govt in the first place, fool.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:50:09 +1100 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.

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

Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:
As a landlord, I already charge as much as I can obtain for my property.

And if the disposable income of every tennant went up as they no longer
had to pay council tax, this would no way imply that they could afford to
pay a larger amount in rent?

Plus as has been pointed out, the increased cost would affect every
landlord so they would all have the same incentive to increase prices.
So where would the competitive pressure to *not* pass it on come from?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Rod Speed twisted the electrons to say:
Nothing fair about that, particular for those who have organised
their affiars so that what they get cash wise in retirement does
cover their outgoings and taxes but wont cover your stupid tax.

Though if the drivel was actually right then LVT would be a great way for
the well paid to avoid paying any tax. It would be somewhat high risk,
but only have minimal wealth and otherwise spend every penny you earn.
Stay in top hotels all the time (don't worry, the Hilton already charges
the maximum they can so even if they've got a much higher tax bill and
you have vastly more money it won't change the price!), rent flashy cars
(Avis already charges the maximum they can, so no increases there even if
Avis' tax bill has increased), fly business class all the time (airport
landing fees are already the maximum ... etc etc) and so on ...

Of course, some people might think that failed when it came to being
"fair"
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On 18/03/12 12:04, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:50:09 +1100 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.

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:

As a landlord, I already charge as much as I can obtain for my property.

And if the disposable income of every tennant went up as they no longer
had to pay council tax, this would no way imply that they could afford to
pay a larger amount in rent?

It may do.

Plus as has been pointed out, the increased cost would affect every
landlord so they would all have the same incentive to increase prices.
So where would the competitive pressure to *not* pass it on come from?

But the landlord would have no other tax to pay, so no Income Tax, Council
tax, VAT, etc, so no change. The landlord will pass on some LVT for sure,
but not much, but to say all will go on the tenant is not the case as all
the economic profs say.

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed twisted the electrons to say:
Nothing fair about that, particular for those who have organised
their affiars so that what they get cash wise in retirement does
cover their outgoings and taxes but wont cover your stupid tax.

Though if the drivel was actually right then LVT would be a great way for
the well paid to avoid paying any tax. It would be somewhat high risk,
but only have minimal wealth and otherwise spend every penny you earn.
Stay in top hotels all the time (don't worry, the Hilton already charges
the maximum they can so even if they've got a much higher tax bill and
you have vastly more money it won't change the price!), rent flashy cars
(Avis already charges the maximum they can, so no increases there even if
Avis' tax bill has increased), fly business class all the time (airport
landing fees are already the maximum ... etc etc) and so on ...

I am 100% right. Sounds OK if you put it that way, money then circulates
and all benefit. Currently we have non-productive and harmful money
hoarders and speculators who deliberately manipulate raise prices.

Wayne Rooney could pay zero tax if he lived in a cardboard box in a doorway.
I doubt he would and take advantage of more money in his pocket because of
no income tax, VAT, etc, and buy a nice big house and be better off all
around financially.

Of course, some people might think
that failed when it came to being
"fair"

That is very fair. The wealthy then pay their fair share instead of clawing
back their taxes via tax free gains in the land market - the land under
their homes. In short they are appropriating common wealth for private
gain. The enclosures is still going on.

"djc" wrote in message
...
On 18/03/12 12:04, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:50:09 +1100 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.

Then he sells and more people become owner/occupiers.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:50:09 +1100 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.

Correct. This Speed fellow is not that bright.

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.

Nope.

I currently have a house up for rent in Ballarat
and it will fetch what the market says it will fetch.

And what the market says it will fetch includes the LVT
because ALL the landlords pass on the LVT to the tenants
because otherwise they wouldnt be making as much profit.

Any prospective tenant could not give a toss whether I am liable for Land Tax or not

All landlords are, thats how the rate are calculated in Australia.

or whether my marginal rate of tax is 15%, 30% or 40%.

I didnt say they pass on the income tax they pay.

He will pay what the property is worth, regardless of the tax I pay.

And when all landlords pay the LVT when they pay the rates on the
property, they are all charged the LVT and they all pass it on to their
tenants because the tenants can only rent from a landlord who passes
on the LVT.

In spades now that most places are desperately short of rental housing
and the tenants get to pay what the landlords choose to charge rental wise.

Doctor Drivel wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote
dennis@home wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

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.

Have fun explaining why it doesnt in Australia which
has had an LVT for more than a century now.

Who would want to buy land if they are going to pay tax and have no hope of actually using it?

If he has not hope of the land productively using it, it will not buy.

Have fun explaining why they still do in Australia
which has had an LVT for more than a century now.

LVT is only in the state of New South Wales,

Wrong. The council rates are ALL determined by the value of the land,
here called the UCV, unimproved capital value, unimproved in the sense
that any buildings and improvments like fencing etc are not included in
the valuation, and so its the value of the land, and so an LVT.

which levies a state land value tax.

It does that AS WELL as basing the council rates on the land value.

And that does NOT force the land to be used productively,
as I can prove to you any time you like with photos of land
that isnt used at all productively or otherwise in NSW.

However unlike council rates,

Which are an LVT when they are based on the value of the land alone, which they are.

farmland and a person's principal place of residence are generally exempt and the state tax is only levied on value
over a certain threshold.

But that is in ADDITION to the council rates which are in fact
an LVT which almost everyone pays. There are a few trivial
exceptions, most obviously with churches but thats about it.

In New South Wales determination of land value, for tax purposes at a state and local level, is the responsibility of
the Valuer-General.

Yes, and that is used to determine the council rates,
so its an LVT that almost everyone has to pay.

And that does NOT result in all land being productively used.

The cities of Sydney, Canberra, and others in Australia use LVT.

Almost all towns, citys, villages etc etc etc have an effective LVT
because the council rates are determined by the land value.

There are a few exceptions, most obviously with aboriginal communitys
in remote areas where council rates are not charged, but they are a
microscopic subset of residential and commercial land.

An in-depth study under the Chairmanship of Sir Gordon Chalk issued a report in 1986 on the subject of local taxation
for the city of Brisbane, Queensland. The report, which examined many alternative means of local finance, sets out
comprehensive and concise arguments for LVT."

You're missing the point that that they ALL already have an LVT when
the council rates are determined by land value and so are an LVT.

What Chalk was talking about is in ADDITION to the LVT we have had
for more than a century.

And he never ever proposed that his LVT would completley replace
all other forms of taxation as you stupidly propose yourself.

There might just be a reason he did not.

NOT ONE country in the entirely world has ever been that stupid.

Get it?

Nothing get, you dont have a ****ing clue about the basics.

Your knowledge of economic is scant to say the least.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

Planning leave a lot to be desired. The planning system was geared as a mean on population control, not to promote
high quality buildings and environments.

The prime problem is land is being hoarded by speculators

Wrong, as always.

Land speculation is horendously damaging.

Wrong, as always. Its what sees productive use of land.

Land speculation caused the 2008 crash.

Like hell it did. It was ACTUALLY caused by interest rates held
much too low for much too long, the terminally stupid US non
recourse system where if your gamble when speculating in
real estate doesnt pan out, you can hand the keys for the
property back to the lending institution with no penaly what
so ever. You dont even lose the early payments if you have
eniough of a clue to borrow more than 100% of the value of
the property and use the excess to make the early payments.

And it was also caused by the ratings agencys being stupid
enough to give securitised bundled mortgages AAA ratings
that they didnt even come close to qualifying for, which
allowed local councils and hordes of others to invest in
those CDOs because they arent allowed to invest in
securitys with less than a AAA rating in quite a few system.

Debt after debt was poured into land until kaboooom.

Not because there was no LVT.

- what brought about the 2008 crash.

Like hell it did.

It clearly did.

Like hell it did.

Economist Fred Harrison....

Just one fool that doesnt have a ****ing clue about the basics.

"Any good economist will tell you, as people's real disposable incomes rise, that money ends up in one place, and one
place only, the LAND MARKET.

Mindlessly silly. And the 2008 fiasco wasnt about LAND anyway,
it was actually about REAL ESTATE PROPERTY instead.

As there is growth land values rise, and it should rise. Except, the problem occurred when that increase in value went
into private pockets instead of going into services: highways, hospitals, schools and so on, that created that value
in the first place" ..

That aint what produces the increase in land values, fool.
..
"This is the sources of our problem, not bankers, big bonuses,
sub-prime mortgages in America and the other excuses they have.

Just because one fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.

Australia did in fact see a massive hike in land values EVEN
THO its had an LVT for more than a century and in fact saw
very little problem at all in the 2008 fiasco.

Nice theory, pity about the real world.

This is the heart of the problem of the market economy,

Completely off with the fairys.

we have to address it.

An LVT clearly doesnt, since Australia has had one for more than
a century and has in fact seen land value go thru the roof anyway.

There has to be political consensus, there has to consensus, with no body playing party politics"

Completely off with the ****ing fairys. Thats never going to happen, fool.

Every country that has implemented Land Valuation Taxation has seen a rise in the economy and lowering of land/house
prices .

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Australia has in fact some of the highest land/house prices in the
entire ****ing world.

But not where LVT is.

Yep, because LVT is EVERYWHERE and the highest land/house
prices are in fact in SYDNEY which does in fact have an LVT in
addition to the council rates based on land value which is an LVT too.

Their implementation is great.

Yes, there are certainly real advantages in having council rates determined
by the value of the land alone. But lowering land/house prices aint one of them.

If it was if would be far better in Auss.

Try posting when not ****ed.

The land speculators, and mining corps hold sway with the government there.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. Have fun explaining why Labor
has just introduced a mining excessive profits tax. They cant
actually 'hold sway' if they couldnt even stop that happening stupid.

The prices remain static as the economy grows around the land.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

That happened in Denmark.

And didnt in Australia which has had an LVT for more than a century now.

Nice theory, pity about the real world.

It is best you at least try and understand and stop being **** with attitude...

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

Corse you'll never manage to understand that Australia has had an LVT for more than a century now.

and also stop making things up.

Havent made up even a single thing, you silly little pathological liar.

Doctor Drivel wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote
dennis@home wrote
hugh ] wrote

Agreed, but until you do calling something fair or unfair is a bit meaningless, but one of the first criteria to
be mentioned is usually ability to pay and council tax pays no regard to that.

Council tax is one of the things the benefits system pays if you can't afford it.

It would be the same with Land Vauation Tax exemptions or delayed until death or sale of land.

If that is done, there goes any useful result from the LVT, stupid.

Silly ****,

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.

HMG gets it money for the land - just delayed.

And since its delayed, you dont force PRODUCTIVE USE OF THE LAND, stupid.

And if you delay the LVT until the land is sold, no one will ever sell, because then they dont have the money to buy
the new one, stupid.

Silly ****,

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.

HMG get the money on death.

Nope, because that would be part of the exemption death dutys for the lower inheritances.

Over 650,000 people dies each year in the UK, so lots coming in.

Nope, because that would be part of the exemption death dutys for the lower inheritances.

It is best at least you try to understand

You're so stupid that you cant even manage to understand that there isnt
even the remotest possibility of any govt ever being able to have nothing
but an LVT as the only form of taxation, which would see the govt try to rip
off all the land value entirely from every single home owner in the country
and would destitute every single one because of the money they would
need to raise with that being the only tax in the country.

AND every single landlord would be destituted too.

AND every single commercial operation in the country would be wiped out too.

If you thought that the poll tax riots were a tad uncivilised, you aint seen nothing yet.

Fortunately even the stupidest politicians aint actually THAT stupid.

Even Maggie Thatcher in her cups wasnt actually THAT stupid.

There might just be a reason why NOT ONE country in the entire world is actually that stupid.

Doctor Drivel wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote
hugh ] wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote
hugh wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

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?

But why is that fair?

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

Your stupid proposal taxes ALL land owners, fool.

Correct silly ****! Those where the land values are higher pay more, where less trhey pay less.

And since you propose to have no other taxation whatever,
you'd have to slug them ALL so aggressively to raise
enough money you would wipe them ALL out, fool..

And if you are stuipid enough to have JUST and LVT, you have to have a MASSIVE
LVT on everyone who owns any land and those who arent wealthy will be destituted.

The average person on say £40,00 per ann will pay £6,000 less per ann.

That is a bare faced lie. When that is the only tax in the entire
country, you still have to raise the same amount of tax in total.

There is no way that those who are on less than
£40,000 pa could possibly save anything, liar.

You would in fact destitute all home owners.

And all landlords too.

And most commercial operations too.

All been figured out.

All you have actually done is lie.

Economic growth created by the community that
soaks into the land crystallizes as land values.

Even sillier.

You clearly haven't a clue what creates land value. They never came fro the sky.

No one ever said they did.

In fact land used for houses has the values determined by
the rate of release of housing land relative to the demand
for housing land, just like with any other commodity.

What ever the value, the community created it and reclaims it.

Seizes it, actually.

Reclaims what the community created.

Seizes it, actually.

Current, those who appropriate this wealth are stealing.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, comrade.

It is not their wealth.

So the govt should seize it, eh comrade ?

Could have SWORN that that system has just imploded, comrade

Fools like you havent even noticed.

The law should be changed top reflect this.

Taint gunna happen. Even Maggie Thatcher in her drunken seniliity
wasnt THAT stupid and she got the bums rush when it was obvious
to everyone that she was completely out of her ****ing tree.

That would happen in spades if someone was actually stupid enough
to propose JUST an LVT as the only tax in the entire country.

Even that fool Churchill wasnt actually THAT stupid.

Those with more wealth pay more.

Those with their only 'weath' as the land their house is built on would be destituted

What a fertile imagination. No one in Harrisburg USA is destitute because of LVT.

They arent actually stupid enough to have JUST an LVT as the only tax.

Also you pay no Incoem tax, VAT, council tax, etc.

That is a bare faced lie with the federal income
tax and countless other federal taxes like FICA.

and those who dont even have much income because they are
retired or out of work etc would be kicked out of their house to pay
your stupid LVT thats the only tax the govt imposes on anything.

Oh NO!!!! Not that one. Winston Churchill called that the Old Widow bogey. It has been cit to pieces over the past
100 years.

Pigs arse it has, its actually why NO ONE has actually been
stupid enough to have JUST an LVT and no other taxes at all.

And we raise MUCH MORE in taxation than we ever did when
that fool had any say on how taxation was done anyway because
we have decided that we want govt to do much more than it ever
used to do in his day when we decided that a decent modern
welfare system leaves workhouses for dead.

Tax wealth not Income.

NOT ONE country in the entire world is actually that stupid.

You are very sill, so there at least one.

Nope, you are lying, again.

The rich tend to have lots of "wealth" while the poor do not.

There might just be more than the rich and poor in any real economy.

What a silly comment.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

The poor only have their income.

The real poor actually have welfare which even if its taxed, came from the govt in the first place, fool.

Which is given to pay rent - to private landlords,

Not when its govt housing it aint.

Which is in effect welfare for landowners.

Mindlessly silly. Its just an alternative to govt housing, fool.

We welfare for landowners,

Another bare faced lie.

who are not much betters than slavers,

Another bare faced lie.

while those who rent are slaves without shackles.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

Fortunately no one who matters a damn policy wise takes any notice
what so ever of rabid fools like you that dont have a clue about the
basics, which is why NOT ONE country or even locality in the entire
world has JUST an LVT and no other form of taxation whatever.

Alistair Gunn wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Nothing fair about that, particular for those who have organised
their affiars so that what they get cash wise in retirement does
cover their outgoings and taxes but wont cover your stupid tax.

Though if the drivel was actually right then LVT would
be a great way for the well paid to avoid paying any tax.

It would only be viable for those prepared to live
out of the country or to 'live' in their car or van etc.

Because even if they rent, they would still be
paying the LVT on the property they are renting.

And the LVT on the propertys would have to be
immense to collect the same amount of total tax
thats currently collected using all the foms of taxation.

It would be somewhat high risk, but only have minimal wealth and
otherwise spend every penny you earn. Stay in top hotels all the time

They would have to pass on the LVT the pay to those staying there too.

(don't worry, the Hilton already charges the maximum they can

No they dont and they would have to pass on the LVT because
with that being the only tax in the entire country it would have to
be immense so they wouldnt make any profit at all if they didnt
pass it on in what they charge people to stay there.

so even if they've got a much higher tax bill and you
have vastly more money it won't change the price!),

Corse would, otherwise they'd go broke very quickly.

If they didnt pass it on, there would be no hotels anymore.

rent flashy cars

Yes, you could certainly 'live' in those, or one you own yourself
and pay for instead of paying for the house you used to own.

Trouble is those dont keep their value like houses do so you'd
end up worse off than with the current way we do taxation.

(Avis already charges the maximum they can, so
no increases there even if Avis' tax bill has increased),

Thats not right either when all car renters are slugged the LVT
on the land they occupy and have to pass on that immense tax
to car renters, otherwise they would go broke quick smart.

The renters get to like it or lump it because all would have to hike their prices.

They could certianly buy cars instead, but new car prices would hike too,
because all the operations flogging cars would have to pass on the immense
LVT they are slugged on the land their car flogging operations occupy too.

Used cars too.

The only prices that in theory would move would be those charged
by the hordes 'living' in their cars to avoid paying any LVT directly or
indirectly via their landlord. And even then the prices would spike due
to supply and demand with so many 'living' in their cars. And they'd be
slugged fines for 'living' in their cars too.

fly business class all the time (airport landing fees are already the maximum ...

Nope, not when all airports start getting slugged
immense LVTs for the very expensive land they have.

etc etc) and so on ...

Of course, some people might think that failed when it came to being "fair"

Yep, but only those with even half a clue.

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.

Doctor Drivel wrote
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.

Then he sells

No one stupid enough to buy it if the LVT is the only tax in the country.

and more people become owner/occupiers.

Nope, not if the LVT is the only tax in the country.

They would in fact just do nothing and wait till all the polly stupid
enough to go that route have got lynched and replaced with pollys
with enough of a clue to return to the original tax regime where the
LVT is just one of the taxes in the country and where that does in
fact get paid by the renters, because all landlords do that so the
renters have nowhere else to go, particulary when there is a
desperate shortage of rental property.

Doctor Drivel wrote
Alistair Gunn wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Nothing fair about that, particular for those who have organised
their affiars so that what they get cash wise in retirement does
cover their outgoings and taxes but wont cover your stupid tax.

Though if the drivel was actually right then LVT would be a great
way for the well paid to avoid paying any tax. It would be somewhat
high risk, but only have minimal wealth and otherwise spend every
penny you earn. Stay in top hotels all the time (don't worry, the
Hilton already charges the maximum they can so even if they've got a
much higher tax bill and you have vastly more money it won't change
the price!), rent flashy cars (Avis already charges the maximum they
can, so no increases there even if Avis' tax bill has increased),
fly business class all the time (airport landing fees are already
the maximum ... etc etc) and so on ...

I am 100% right.

Must be why NOT ONE country or region is actually
stupid enough to have JUST an LVT as the only tax.

Sounds OK if you put it that way, money then circulates

Nope, the politicians stupid enough go that route get lynched instead.

and all benefit.

Pigs arse those who have arranged their affairs so that they have
enough income in retirement to live comfortably do when your stupid
hare brains scheme means that they cant possibly pay your stupid LVT.

Neither can anyone else when its the only tax and the entire tax revenue
has to be collected via the LVT, even well paid professionals couldnt.

Currently we have non-productive and harmful money hoarders and speculators who deliberately manipulate raise prices.

We actually have hordes who choose to own their own homes,
who are in fact nothing even remotely resembling anything like that.

They will be the ones lynching any pollys stupid enough
to go that route and even the stupidest polly knows that.

Even Churchill did, which might just be why even he wasnt
actually stupid enough to have JUST an LVT as the only tax.

Wayne Rooney could pay zero tax if he lived in a cardboard box in a
doorway. I doubt he would and take advantage of more money in his
pocket because of no income tax, VAT, etc, and buy a nice big house
and be better off all around financially.

Pigs arse he would be if Britain was actually stupid enough to try
raising the entire tax revenue currently achieved using just an LVT.

Of course, some people might think that failed when it came to being "fair"

That is very fair.

You can spew that lie till the cows come home, changes nothing.

The wealthy then pay their fair share instead of clawing back their taxes via tax free gains in the land market - the
land under their homes.

PIty that the non wealthy couldnt possibly afford to pay the LVT that
would be needed to raise the same revenue when it was the only tax.

In short they are appropriating common wealth for private gain.

Like it or lump it, comrade.

The enclosures is still going on.

Just another of your bare faced lies, comrade.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

As a landlord, I already charge as much as I can obtain for my property.

And if the disposable income of every tennant went up as they no longer had to pay council tax, this would no way
imply that they could afford to pay a larger amount in rent?

It may do.

So if it wasnt for the fact that with JUST an LVT, the LVT would have
to be immense to collect the same tax revenue currently being collected,
the landlord could of course pass on the LVT to the renter because all
landlords would do that so the renters get to like that or lump it.

Plus as has been pointed out, the increased cost would affect every
landlord so they would all have the same incentive to increase prices. So where would the competitive pressure to
*not* pass it on come from?

But the landlord would have no other tax to pay, so no Income Tax, Council tax, VAT, etc, so no change.

A massive change in fact because of the immense LVT the
landlord would have to pay because there is no income tax
for individuals or commercial operations etc etc etc.

The landlord will pass on some LVT for sure,

You previously pig ignorantly claimed that they couldnt pass any of it on.

You cant even manage a consistent line of drivel.

but not much,

In fact a hell of a lot because with JUST an LVT the LVT
would be immense, MUCH more than the renter would be
paying in rent, so the landlord would go bust in no time at all.

but to say all will go on the tenant is not the case

There is no alternative given that the LVT would have to be immense
given that its the only tax that has to raise all the current tax revenue.

as all the economic profs say.

Another bare faced flagrantly dishonest lie.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

Agreed, but until you do calling something fair or unfair is a bit
meaningless, but one of the first criteria to be mentioned is usually
ability to pay and council tax pays no regard to that.

Council tax is one of the things the benefits system pays if you can't
afford it.
That's not the same thing.
--
hugh

In message , Tony Bryer
writes
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:50:09 +1100 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.

Your house will fetch you what you *think* the market will fetch.
And currently the renter pays your rent + council tax, so they will then
pay your rent + LVT. Alternatively your new rent will be old rent
without CT + LVT. Simples.
--
hugh

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Alistair Gunn wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Nothing fair about that, particular for those who have organised
their affiars so that what they get cash wise in retirement does
cover their outgoings and taxes but wont cover your stupid tax.

Though if the drivel was actually right then LVT would
be a great way for the well paid to avoid paying any tax.

It would only be viable for those prepared to live
out of the country or to 'live' in their car or van etc.

Because even if they rent, they would still be
paying the LVT on the property they are renting.

And the LVT on the propertys would have to be
immense to collect the same amount of total tax
thats currently collected using all the foms of taxation.

It would be somewhat high risk, but only have minimal wealth and
otherwise spend every penny you earn. Stay in top hotels all the time

They would have to pass on the LVT the pay to those staying there too.

(don't worry, the Hilton already charges the maximum they can

No they dont and they would have to pass on the LVT because
with that being the only tax in the entire country it would have to
be immense so they wouldnt make any profit at all if they didnt
pass it on in what they charge people to stay there.

so even if they've got a much higher tax bill and you
have vastly more money it won't change the price!),

Corse would, otherwise they'd go broke very quickly.

If they didnt pass it on, there would be no hotels anymore.

rent flashy cars

Yes, you could certainly 'live' in those, or one you own yourself
and pay for instead of paying for the house you used to own.

Trouble is those dont keep their value like houses do so you'd
end up worse off than with the current way we do taxation.

(Avis already charges the maximum they can, so
no increases there even if Avis' tax bill has increased),

Thats not right either when all car renters are slugged the LVT
on the land they occupy and have to pass on that immense tax
to car renters, otherwise they would go broke quick smart.

The renters get to like it or lump it because all would have to hike
their prices.

They could certianly buy cars instead, but new car prices would hike too,
because all the operations flogging cars would have to pass on the immense
LVT they are slugged on the land their car flogging operations occupy too.

Used cars too.

The only prices that in theory would move would be those charged
by the hordes 'living' in their cars to avoid paying any LVT directly or
indirectly via their landlord. And even then the prices would spike due
to supply and demand with so many 'living' in their cars. And they'd be
slugged fines for 'living' in their cars too.

fly business class all the time (airport landing fees are already the
maximum ...

Nope, not when all airports start getting slugged
immense LVTs for the very expensive land they have.

etc etc) and so on ...

Of course, some people might think that failed when it came to being "fair"

Yep, but only those with even half a clue.


Cracked it!! Buy the biggest ****ing Winnebago ever. Just cruise around
man. No tax to pay ever.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
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?

But why is that fair?

Because the value of land is higher in more expensive locations where
the more wealthy live. Economic growth created by the community that
soaks into the land crystallizes as land values. What ever the value,
the community created it and reclaims it. Get it? ;-)

It is fair. Those with more wealth pay more. Tax wealth not Income.
The rich tend to have lost of "wealth" while the poor do not. The poor
only have their income.



Well I can't argue with that - the rich do indeed tend to have a lot of
wealth.
--
hugh