"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

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

But you pay parking costs, etc, etc.

A tax is a levy into the state which you do not know where is going. LVT is
a charge (not tax) for services. A public charge on the uneaened profits of
land is not a TAX. To call it a tax is to concede

1. The legitimacy of ownership rights to land and nature's resources

2. The willingness to collect no more than a percentage of land's income
stream - meaning: the "owner" may legitimately retain the untaxed gains.

LVT does NOT "tax" land, people pay personally, directly, for the benefits
they receive. Part of those payments must be by way of a general charge on
the imputed rent of land. But that charge (LVT) is payment for the actual
services accessed at each and every location. So the LVT payment is
determined NOT by the state but by the person who chooses to locate
him/herself on that site. This means the payment is

1. Voluntary

2. Proportionate to the benefits received.

The above are not the characteristics of a "tax".

Full LVT has people paying for the full price for the services they
personally receive, in the way that they do in the consumer, labour and
capital markets.

LVT does not tax your garden - all LVT does is make you to honour your
obligation to pay for the services you receive, rather than sponge off
tenant families who pay the full rent of their location PLUS taxes on their
wages which are used, in part, to subsidise the landowner.

LVT is the "Single Tax" - meaning we fund public services out of the value
that is created by those services. Again, LVT is NOT a tax. Calling it a
tax is inviting middle-class home-owners (today's aristocracy, in political
power terms) to honour their value system - pay for what you get, and get
rid of taxes on the incomes you earn.

The language of LVT is a political/moral prospectus that the voting
majority - middle-class home-owners - would not be able to oppose.

People need to be reminded to stop whinging about what's wrong with this
world, stop talking about your entitlements, accept personal responsibility
and claim what is yours by right. Translate those strictures into the
principles of fiscal policy, and you arrive at the LVT paradigm.

In Britain, power shifted back to the people when the exposing the expenses
scam of our parliamentarians occured - a scam based on manipulating the
capital gains to be made from real estate). This shift - of power to the
people - happened twice in the 20th century in 1906-10; and 1945.

1. The aristocracy in the House of Lords - and the intervention of WWI -
scuppered the will of the people, circa 1910-20.

2. The socialists screwed the window of opportunity, 1945-1972, by
mismanaging their power in not reforming the land market and fiscal policy.

Now, thanks to the parliamentary expenses scandal, politicians know they
have lost their grip on power. Which is why all the political parties have
suddenly started offering "constitutional reform". That's their ploy for
recovering lost ground. Calling LVT a new "tax" plays straight into their
hands - back to their comfort zone! We, the people, may succeed in
retaining the initiative, if we alter the terms of engagement.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
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.

It doesn't.IT fetched what someone pay for it. Not what something should be
paid.

And currently the renter pays your rent + council tax, so they will then
pay your rent + LVT.

Wrong with LVT, little, to sero, is paid via the tenant. See post on this.

Doctor Drivel wrote
hugh ] wrote

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

But you pay parking costs, etc, etc.

Depends entirely on where yu want to stop.

Plenty of places where you dont have those.

A tax is a levy into the state which you do not know where is going.

Thats just plain wrong. Some taxes are allocated to specific uses.

They dont all end up in general revenue.

LVT is a charge (not tax) for services.

Even you should be able to work out what the T stands for.

A public charge on the uneaened profits of land is not a TAX.

How odd that the last word of LVT is TAX.

To call it a tax is to concede

1. The legitimacy of ownership rights to land and nature's resources

Even sillier. Plenty of taxes do nothing of the kind.

2. The willingness to collect no more than a percentage of land's
income stream - meaning: the "owner" may legitimately retain the
untaxed gains.

Even sillier. Most taxes do just that.

LVT does NOT "tax" land,

How odd that the last word in LVT is tax.

people pay personally, directly, for the benefits they receive.

Even sillier with land that they dont even occupy by which they have to pay the tax on.

Part of those payments must be by way of a general charge on the imputed rent of land. But that charge (LVT) is
payment for the actual services accessed at each and every location.

Wrong with land which isnt currently being used.

So the LVT payment is determined NOT by the state but by the person who chooses to locate him/herself on that site.
This means the payment is

1. Voluntary

Like hell it is when they will take if off you or jail you if you dont pay it.

2. Proportionate to the benefits received.

Even sillier with unoccupied land which incurs the
same LVT as land which has something built on it.

The above are not the characteristics of a "tax".

How odd that the last word in LVT is tax.

I know, thats just spin, because everyone
loves taxes and hates charges, eh ?

Full LVT has people paying for the full price for the services they personally receive,

They dont recieve any with unused land.

in the way that they do in the consumer, labour and capital markets.

Pigs arse they do, most obviously with voluntary labor.

LVT does not tax your garden - all LVT does is make you to honour your obligation to pay for the services you receive,

Even sillier with unused land.

rather than sponge off tenant families who pay the full rent of their location PLUS taxes on their wages which are
used, in part, to subsidise the landowner.

Yeah, yeah, lets kill all the landlords and kulaks, eh comrade ?

LVT is the "Single Tax"

Nope, not one country or even region is actually
stupid enough to do their LVT that way.

- meaning we fund public services out of the value that is created by those services.

We clearly dont when not one country or even region
is actually stupid enough to do their LVT that way.

Again, LVT is NOT a tax.

How odd that the last word in LVT is tax.

I know, thats just spin, because everyone
loves taxes and hates charges, eh ?

Calling it a tax is inviting middle-class home-owners (today's aristocracy, in political power terms)

Even sillier.

to honour their value system - pay for what you get, and get rid of taxes on the incomes you earn.

Yeah, yeah, kill all those too, eh comrade...

The language of LVT is a political/moral prospectus that the voting
majority - middle-class home-owners - would not be able to oppose.

Even you'd notice that was a lie if the govt was actually stupid
enough to have an LVT as the only tax in the entire country.

They and anyone with even half a clue would be opposing it.

Which might just explain why NOT ONE country or even region
has ever been that stupid where they got a vote on the matter.

People need to be reminded to stop whinging about what's wrong with this world, stop talking about your entitlements,
accept personal responsibility and claim what is yours by right.

Have fun producing that situation.

I know, you'll wave your magic wand, eh comrade ?

Translate those strictures into the principles of fiscal policy, and you arrive at the LVT paradigm.

And then anyone with even half a clue can work out what
the consequences of just an LVT and no other taxation
would be and tosses it in the bin where it belongs.

That might just the reason why NOT ONE country or even
region has ever actually been that stupid when the voters
get any say on what happens to clowns that stupid.

In Britain, power shifted back to the people when the exposing the expenses scam of our parliamentarians occured

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

Labour had been in for a very long time and got the bums
rush eventually, just like the Torys before them did.

- a scam based on manipulating the capital gains to be made from real estate).

Even sillier. It became clear that the brown one didnt have
a ****ing clue and the voters gave him the bums rush and
the other crew got to see if they could do any better.

This shift - of power to the people - happened twice in the 20th century in 1906-10; and 1945.

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

1. The aristocracy in the House of Lords - and the intervention of WWI - scuppered the will of the people, circa
1910-20.

Nope, the cost of that war did.

2. The socialists screwed the window of opportunity, 1945-1972, by
mismanaging their power in not reforming the land market and fiscal policy.

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

Now, thanks to the parliamentary expenses scandal, politicians know
they have lost their grip on power. Which is why all the political
parties have suddenly started offering "constitutional reform".

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

That's their ploy for recovering lost ground.

Calling LVT a new "tax" plays straight into their hands

Its never going to happen as the only tax, regardless of what its called.

No politician who matters a damn is actually THAT stupid.

- back to their comfort zone! We, the people, may succeed in retaining the initiative, if we alter the terms of
engagement.

Yeah, yeah, man the barricades, eh comrade ?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one who matters
a damn policy wise ever takes any notice of your mindless silly ****.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:21:29 +0000 Djc wrote :
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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent says,
using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and nothing I can do
will change that. If I decide I need $350 because of current interest
rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that price it will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness or
otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or less as
compared to alternative investments.

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

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:51:23 +1100 Rod Speed wrote :
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.

No, a landlord may be paying anything between 0 (land value below
$250K) and 2.25% in Victoria (it's a state tax).
http://tinyurl.com/6qjzrtl depending on the total site value of
properties they own other than their own home.

My own home is a high rise worth around $700K, land value on the rates
notice $41K (42 storey tower, nearly 500 flats on not a lot of land)
so you could own six like mine ($4.2m) and not pay land tax. Or you
could pay $600K for one time-expired house on a large block in the
suburbs and be paying it.

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

On 20/03/2012 09:42, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:21:29 +0000 Djc wrote :
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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent says,
using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and nothing I can do
will change that. If I decide I need $350 because of current interest
rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that price it will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness or
otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or less as
compared to alternative investments.

Now imagine the govt introduces a rental property tax of, let's say
$100. You really now need to rent for $400-$420 but the market won't
allow that. So, you exit the market. If the tax applies to everyone
renting then a lot of other people will exit too. That reduces the
supply of rental properties and as a consequence pushes up prices to a
point where those that are left can recover the extra $100 that they are
having to pay through increased rents.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

A tax is a levy into the state which you do not know where is going.

Thats just plain wrong. Some taxes are allocated to specific uses.

It is not a tax then. There is a difference between a charge and a tax.
Thatcher called the Poll Tax the Community Charge. The title was correct.The
idea of the Poll tax was plain daft like the PM at the time.

LVT is a charge (not tax) for services.

Even you should be able to work out what the T stands for.

Renaming LVT a charge

Firstly, LVT is a misnomer, as it is not a tax, it is a charge. Many
observers have suggested re-titling from LVT to a title incorporating the
words "charge" and "reclaim", to give clearer meaning and public
understanding. A tax is a levy that goes directly into public coffers with
the payer not knowing in detail where the money is spent.[14] Naming a
community charge a tax is regarded as a major obstacle by many Geoists in
promoting public acceptance of LVT. A public charge on the unearned gains of
land is

clearly not a tax. LVT is in two parts:
1. Reclamation of community created economic growth that soaked into the
land crystalizing as land values.
2. A charge on the community benefits received.

A part of those payments are via a general charge on the gains of land,
gains created community activity. The LVT charge is a payment for the actual
services and benefits accessed at each and every location. The payment is
determined not by government, but by the person who chooses to locate on
that site. This means the level of payment is:

1. Voluntary
2. Proportionate to the benefits received

The above are not the characteristics of a tax.

To call LVT a tax is to implicitly concede:

a) The legitimacy of ownership rights to land and nature's resources.
b) The willingness to collect no more than a small percentage of land's
income stream - meaning the landowner may legitimately retain the untaxed
gains.

The conventional language of naming a charge a tax will obstruct fiscal
reform. By a linguistic shift in re-titling LVT, the moral basis of Land
Valuation Tax is transformed. A correct naming of LVT invites middle-class
home-owners to honor their value system - pay for what they get, and be rid
of taxes on the incomes they earn. By renaming LVT the voting majority -
middle-class home-owners - would generally not oppose and go along with the
charge.[15]

A public charge on the uneaened profits of land is not a TAX.

How odd that the last word of LVT is TAX.

It is still charging on "unearned" gains.

To call it a tax is to concede:

1. The legitimacy of ownership rights to land and nature's resources

Even sillier. Plenty of taxes do nothing of the kind.

You did not undertand the point - as usual.

2. The willingness to collect no more than a percentage of land's
income stream - meaning: the "owner" may legitimately retain the
untaxed gains.

Even sillier. Most taxes do just that.

You did not undertand the point - as usual.

people pay personally, directly, for the benefits they receive.

Even sillier with land that they dont even occupy by which they have to
pay the tax on.

If they do not occupy land they "own" full LVT is charged. As those at that
location receive the benefits of that location.

Part of those payments must be by way of a general charge on the imputed
rent of land. But that charge (LVT) is payment for the actual services
accessed at each and every location.

Wrong with land which isnt currently being used.

If the "owner" is not occupying the land the occupier receives the benefits
of that site. That is easy to understand.

So the LVT payment is determined NOT by the state but by the person who
chooses to locate him/herself on that site. This means the payment is

1. Voluntary

Like hell it is when they will take if off you or jail you if you dont pay
it.

The level of payment is voluntary. Move to a lower LVT area and you pay
less.

Full LVT has people paying for the full price for the services they
personally receive,

They dont recieve any with unused land.

They receive the benefits of the location.

in the way that they do in the consumer, labour and capital markets.

Pigs arse they do, most obviously with voluntary labor.

They do. Read again.

LVT does not tax your garden - all LVT does is make you to honour your
obligation to pay for the services you receive,

Even sillier with unused land.

The person at the location get the benefits of that location.

rather than sponge off tenant families who pay the full rent of their
location PLUS taxes on their wages which are used, in part, to subsidise
the landowner.

Yeah, yeah, lets kill all the landlords and kulaks, eh comrade ?

The simple fact is that landowners and sponge of non-landowners. It is not
difficult to understand

LVT is the "Single Tax"

Nope, not one country or even region is actually
stupid enough to do their LVT that way.

Powerful landowning vested interest stops it. Look at British history. One
of land struggle and still going on. A handful of families treat the whole
country like their own private estate.

- meaning we fund public services out of the value that is created by
those services.

We clearly dont when not one country or even region
is actually stupid enough to do their LVT that way.

Many do in fact. Hong Kong for sure. Taiwan, Singapore. Auss, USA, Denmark.
Estonia. You have been told this but your retention is near zero.

You are clearly not very bright. This is sad.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:21:29 +0000 Djc wrote :
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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent says,
using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and nothing I can do
will change that. If I decide I need $350 because of current interest
rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that price it will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness or
otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or less as
compared to alternative investments.

If you lease a flat, that is you do not own the land. The flat is Capital is
an"investment". If you own the land then you are a parasite (economic
term). The tax system can make parasites divert their money to enterprise
and productive use.

"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
On 20/03/2012 09:42, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:21:29 +0000 Djc wrote :
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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent says,
using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and nothing I can do
will change that. If I decide I need $350 because of current interest
rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that price it will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness or
otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or less as
compared to alternative investments.

Now imagine the govt introduces a rental property tax of, let's say $100.

A rental tax? Not very bright. A reclaim charge on the rental "value" of the
"land". In an apartment only the landowner pays. He will push some onto the
apartments, but not all. If the block is commonhold, then say 100 flats,
then the LVT on the land is split by 100.

If the rental value per ann. drops then the LVT drops, conversely if it is
raised then LVT rises. The market dictates the level of LVT - self
regulating.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:51:23 +1100 Rod Speed wrote :
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.

No, a landlord may be paying anything between 0 (land value below
$250K) and 2.25% in Victoria (it's a state tax).
http://tinyurl.com/6qjzrtl depending on the total site value of
properties they own other than their own home.

My own home is a high rise worth around $700K, land value on the rates
notice $41K (42 storey tower, nearly 500 flats on not a lot of land)
so you could own six like mine ($4.2m) and not pay land tax. Or you
could pay $600K for one time-expired house on a large block in the
suburbs and be paying it.

The Aussies need to get that right. True LVT is the "rental value" not the
land value. That is more reflective. LVT at 100% and no Income Tax is
needed. More properties are owner/occupied.

On 20/03/2012 11:57, Doctor Drivel wrote:

A rental tax? Not very bright.

I was merely pointing out that if the cost increases to all landlords
then rent would go up by virtue of some of those landlords getting out
of the market. I tried to keep it simple and avoid the divisiveness of
LVT. Seems that, in some quarters at least, I failed.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

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

But you pay parking costs, etc, et
No no. I park in a field and start an illegal travellers site. No taxes
charges or anything to pay at all. Then the local council comes along
and puts in hard standing, a shower block laundry facilities etc. No
worries.
--
hugh

Tony Bryer wrote
Djc wrote

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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent says,
using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and nothing I can
do will change that. If I decide I need $350 because of current interest
rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that price it will just stay empty.

But when an LVT is introduced, all landlords will have to
pay it, so they can all increase what they charge to pay
for it and the renter only gets to like that or lump it.

Even if they choose to stop renting and buy instead, they still have to pay the LVT.

The only way to avoid paying any LVT is to 'live' in a Winnebago or their car etc.

And with an LVT as the only tax, it wouldnt even be viable to be a landlord
at all, or own a normal house either, because LVT would have to be
immense to collect the same total tax revenue as is collected currently.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness
or otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or
less as compared to alternative investments.

Yes, and thats why an LVT as the only tax cant possibly fly
because it would make being a landlord completely unviable.

And would make home ownership completely unviable too.

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

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

But you pay parking costs, etc, et

No no. I park in a field and start an illegal travellers site. No taxes
charges or anything to pay at all. Then the local council comes along and
puts in hard standing, a shower block laundry facilities etc. No worries.

That is the case right now! Duh!

In a traveller site the land owner will pay the LVT. This of course will be
partially recouped in charging for the caravan berths. LVT would eliminate
illegal traveller sites. Whatever land they setup on someone will be paying
LVT, as "all" land has LVT due. If the authorities do not remove the
caravans the owner could refuse to pay the LVT until they are removed.
Currently travellers setting up on any uncultivated - the land is not LVT'd
and no tax whatsoever is paid for by the landowner. Currently the landowner
does not lose.

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

"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
On 20/03/2012 11:57, Doctor Drivel wrote:

A rental tax? Not very bright.

I was merely pointing out that if the cost increases to all landlords then
rent would go up by virtue of some of those landlords getting out of the
market.

I think you mean a shortage of rental accommodation will push up rents. But
the accommodation is still there in another form of ownership, so demand for
rental accommodation will be less. More accommodation will be sold onto the
ower/occupier sector.

I tried to keep it simple and avoid the divisiveness of LVT. Seems that,
in some quarters at least, I failed.

There is nothing simpler than LVT. Only one tax. Reclaiming the annual
value rate of land and no other taxes. Or some recommend setting the rate on
the more accurate annual "rental value", which is by the way.

Tony Bryer wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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 rates are calculated in Australia.

No, a landlord may be paying anything between 0 (land
value below $250K) and 2.25% in Victoria (it's a state tax).

Thats not the rates which are determined by the value of the land.

http://tinyurl.com/6qjzrtl depending on the total site value
of properties they own other than their own home.

Thats in addition to the LVT thats what the rates are
because the rates are determined by the value of the land.

My own home is a high rise worth around $700K, land value on the
rates notice $41K (42 storey tower, nearly 500 flats on not a lot of
land) so you could own six like mine ($4.2m) and not pay land tax.

But you do pay rates. Its an LVT.

Or you could pay $600K for one time-expired
house on a large block in the suburbs and be paying it.

Almost everyone pays rates that are determined by the value of the land.

Thats why the land value appears on your rates notice.

There are a few that dont pay rates, particularly
churches etc, but its a tiny subset of property.

On 20/03/2012 15:21, Doctor Drivel wrote:

There is nothing simpler than LVT. Only one tax. Reclaiming the annual
value rate of land and no other taxes.

I have asked you this before and you didn't answer. How do you value the
_land_ on which a house is built?

Andrew May wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

There is nothing simpler than LVT. Only one tax. Reclaiming the annual value rate of land and no other taxes.

I have asked you this before and you didn't answer. How do you value the _land_ on which a house is built?

In theory you look at the price bare land is sold for and try to find
something comparable to the land under the house location wise etc.

In practice with modern citys where there is very little bare land available
anywhere except the extreme outskirts etc, its one hell of an abortion/guess.

Doctor Drivel wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

No, a landlord may be paying anything between 0 (land value below $250K) and 2.25% in Victoria (it's a state tax).
http://tinyurl.com/6qjzrtl depending on the total site value of
properties they own other than their own home.

My own home is a high rise worth around $700K, land value on the
rates notice $41K (42 storey tower, nearly 500 flats on not a lot of
land) so you could own six like mine ($4.2m) and not pay land tax.
Or you could pay $600K for one time-expired house on a large block
in the suburbs and be paying it.

The Aussies need to get that right.

Nope, we've had it right for more than a century now.

True LVT is the "rental value" not the land value.

How odd that its called a land value.

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

That is more reflective.

Its a bare faced lie.

LVT at 100% and no Income Tax is needed.

No one has ever been stupid enough to have just an LVT
and no other taxes at all anywhere that the voters get
any say on how long they will be driving the bus for.

More properties are owner/occupied.

They wouldnt be with just an LVT and no other tax at all.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Andrew May wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Djc wrote

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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent
says, using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and
nothing I can do will change that. If I decide I need $350 because
of current interest rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that
price it will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness
or otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or
less as compared to alternative investments.

Now imagine the govt introduces a rental property tax of, let's say $100.

A rental tax? Not very bright. A reclaim charge on the rental "value" of the "land".

No such animal.

In an apartment only the landowner pays.

Wrong, as always.

He will push some onto the apartments, but not all.

Wrong, as always.

If the block is commonhold, then say 100 flats, then the LVT on the land is split by 100.

If the rental value per ann. drops then the LVT drops,

Nope, the LAND VALUE hasnt changed.

conversely if it is raised then LVT rises.

Nope, the LAND VALUE hasnt changed.

The market dictates the level of LVT - self regulating.

Nope, the LAND VALUE hasnt changed.

On 20/03/2012 16:27, Rod Speed wrote:
Andrew May wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

There is nothing simpler than LVT. Only one tax. Reclaiming the annual value rate of land and no other taxes.

I have asked you this before and you didn't answer. How do you value the _land_ on which a house is built?

In theory you look at the price bare land is sold for and try to find
something comparable to the land under the house location wise etc.

In practice with modern citys where there is very little bare land available
anywhere except the extreme outskirts etc, its one hell of an abortion/guess.


But the value of a bare piece of land is only that of farmland unless it
has planning permission, in which case the value depends on what the
planning permission is for. So, a bare piece of land is valued as farm
land. The same piece with planning permission for a two-bedroom bungalow
has a higher value. But if it has planning permission for a 16-storey
office block it is higher still.

But, the land on which most houses stand does not have planning
permission to build anything[1]. So the value must, by definition, be
that of farmland. You could argue that if it already has a house on it
should be valued based on an assumption that it would get planning
permission to build a house. But if you do that you open up a whole new
can of worms. If I own a site with no planning permission that has never
been built on in the middle of a town what is it worth? The value as
farmland? The value with a house on (in which case what size or how
many) or the value with an office block on. I could apply to build any
of those but until I do what I would be allowed to is a matter of
speculation.

[1] Planning permission lapses after typically five years. If I knock
down an existing house there is no guarantee that I will get permission
to build another.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Tony Bryer wrote
Djc wrote

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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent
says, using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and nothing
I can do will change that. If I decide I need $350 because of
current interest rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that price it
will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness
or otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or
less as compared to alternative investments.

If you lease a flat, that is you do not own the land. The flat is
Capital is an"investment". If you own the land then you are a
parasite (economic term). The tax system can make parasites divert their money to enterprise and productive use.

How odd that it doesnt in Australia that has had an LVT for more than a century.

Nice theory, pity about what actually happens in the real world.

Tim Streater wrote
Rod Speed wrote

In practice with modern citys where there is very little bare land available

cities. Oh, and fairies, too.

Nope, I choose to spell like that. You get to like it or lump it.

Andrew May wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Andrew May wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

There is nothing simpler than LVT. Only one tax. Reclaiming the annual value rate of land and no other taxes.

I have asked you this before and you didn't answer. How do you value the _land_ on which a house is built?

In theory you look at the price bare land is sold for and try to find
something comparable to the land under the house location wise etc.

In practice with modern citys where there is very little bare land available anywhere except the extreme outskirts
etc, its one hell of an abortion/guess.

But the value of a bare piece of land is only that of farmland

Nope. You normally do see some land that hasnt got a house on
it for some reason, if only because whoever bought that land for
a house didnt go ahead with building the house for some reason.

unless it has planning permission, in which case the value depends on what the planning permission is for.

Yes, but with house blocks, thats what you want when
deciding what the value of the land is with another block
in that street that does have a house on it.

So, a bare piece of land is valued as farm land.

Nope.

The same piece with planning permission for a two-bedroom
bungalow has a higher value. But if it has planning permission for a 16-storey office block it is higher still.

Yes, but thats just a variation on the problem with determing the land value.

But, the land on which most houses stand does not have planning permission to build anything[1].

Thats just plain wrong.

So the value must, by definition, be that of farmland.

Nope.

You could argue that if it already has a house on it should be valued based on an assumption that it would get
planning
permission to build a house.

Corse you should.

But if you do that you open up a whole new can of worms.

Nope. And that is in fact the way its done where there is an LVT.

If I own a site with no planning permission that has never been built on in the middle of a town what is it worth?

Like I said, that doesnt normally happen.

The value as farmland?

Nope, the value it would have when its got the planning permission.

The value with a house on (in which case what size

That doesnt affect the value of the land.

or how many) or the value with an office block on. I could apply to build any of those but until I do what I would be
allowed to is a matter of speculation.

Not in a jurisdiction where there are areas where only houses
are allowed, others where you are allowed to build a house or
a block of flats, and others where you can build a 50 story building.

[1] Planning permission lapses after typically five years.

Not in places that have an LVT.

If I knock down an existing house there is no guarantee that I will get permission to build another.

Yes there is in places that have an LVT.

The only thing you have to do is build a house that complys with the building regulations.

Doctor Drivel wrote
Rod Speed wrote

A tax is a levy into the state which you do not know where is going.

Thats just plain wrong. Some taxes are allocated to specific uses.

It is not a tax then.

Wrong. Nothing to stop any govt from having a tax which is
only spent on a specific area of govt expenditure. Its still a tax.

There is a difference between a charge and a tax.

It doesnt become a charge when its used for a specific area of govt expenditure.

We have just had a special tax imposed to fund the recovery
from the Brisbane floods. That tax is applied to everyone, not
just those in Brisbane, so its a tax, not a charge.

Thatcher called the Poll Tax the Community Charge.

Just to attempt to make it more palatable. Its still a tax.

The title was correct.

Nope.

The idea of the Poll tax was plain daft like the PM at the time.

Nothing like as daft as an LVT as the only tax.

If you didnt like the poll tax riots, you aint seen nothing
with the riots you'd have if the pollys were that stupid.

Which is why NOT ONE country or even region has ever
been that stupid when the voters get to decide what happens
to a govt that stupid.

LVT is a charge (not tax) for services.

Even you should be able to work out what the T stands for.

Renaming LVT a charge

Just spin.

Firstly, LVT is a misnomer, as it is not a tax, it is a charge.

Wrong, its called a tax because its a tax.

Many observers have suggested re-titling from LVT to a title incorporating the words "charge" and "reclaim", to give
clearer meaning and public understanding.

In reality its just the usual bull**** exercise because no one likes a new tax.

A tax is a levy that goes directly into public coffers with the payer not knowing in detail where the money is
spent.[14]

Wrong. And when the LVT is the only tax, that is precisely what an LVT is anyway.

Naming a community charge a tax is regarded as a major obstacle by many Geoists in promoting public acceptance of LVT.

Because even they realise that its an unmarketable tax.

A public charge on the unearned gains of land is clearly not a tax.

It clearly is a tax when its the only tax and it gets spent on everything
the govt does, including what it hands to Liz and Phil etc etc etc.

LVT is in two parts:
1. Reclamation of community created economic growth that soaked into the land crystalizing as land values.

Thats a lie with land that isnt even affected by economic growth.

2. A charge on the community benefits received.

Another lie with unused land which gets no community benefits whatever.

A part of those payments are via a general charge on the gains of
land, gains created community activity. The LVT charge is a payment
for the actual services and benefits accessed at each and every location.

Wrong with unused land.

The payment is determined not by government, but by the person who chooses to locate on that site.

No one does that with unused land.

This means the level of payment is:

1. Voluntary

Like hell it is when you get the land taken off you
or you get jailed if you refuse to pay the LVT.

2. Proportionate to the benefits received

Another lie with unused land.

Unused land incurs EXACTLY the same LVT
as land that has an immense block of flats on it.

The above are not the characteristics of a tax.

Another lie.

To call LVT a tax is to implicitly concede:

a) The legitimacy of ownership rights to land and nature's resources.

Even sillier with an income tax.

b) The willingness to collect no more than a small percentage of land's income stream - meaning the landowner may
legitimately retain the untaxed gains.

Even sillier with an income tax.

The conventional language of naming a charge a tax will obstruct fiscal reform.

No, because there isnt even the remotest possibility of just an LVT and no other taxes.

By a linguistic shift in re-titling LVT, the moral basis of Land Valuation Tax is transformed.

Changng the name changes nothing, White Rabbit.

A correct naming of LVT

It is in fact a bare faced lie.

invites middle-class home-owners to honor their value system - pay for what they get,

Doesnt happen with unused land.

And it aint just the middle class that own their own homes anyway.

and be rid of taxes on the incomes they earn.

Pure fantasy. NOT ONE country or even region is actually stupid enough to do it that way.

By renaming LVT the voting majority - middle-class home-owners - would generally not oppose and go along with the
charge.[15]

Corse they would when they see the immense LVT they would have to
pay to recover the same total revenue when there is no other tax at all.

You can call it the Santa Claus Charge if you like, they'll STILL lynch you.

A public charge on the uneaened profits of land is not a TAX.

How odd that the last word of LVT is TAX.

It is still charging on "unearned" gains.

So does the income tax in some jurisdictions. Its still a tax.

To call it a tax is to concede:

1. The legitimacy of ownership rights to land and nature's resources

Even sillier. Plenty of taxes do nothing of the kind.

You did not undertand the point - as usual.

You're lying, as always.

2. The willingness to collect no more than a percentage of land's income stream - meaning: the "owner" may
legitimately retain the untaxed gains.

Even sillier. Most taxes do just that.

You did not undertand the point - as usual.

You're lying, as always.

people pay personally, directly, for the benefits they receive.

Even sillier with land that they dont even occupy but which they have to pay the tax on.

If they do not occupy land they "own" full LVT is charged.

And they dont recieve any benefits.

As those at that location receive the benefits of that location.

Pity they aint the ones paying the LVT.

Part of those payments must be by way of a general charge on the imputed rent of land. But that charge (LVT) is
payment for the actual services accessed at each and every location.

Wrong with land which isnt currently being used.

If the "owner" is not occupying the land the occupier receives the benefits of that site.

When the land is unused, there is no occupier, stupid.

That is easy to understand.

It clearly beyond you.

So the LVT payment is determined NOT by the state but by the person who chooses to locate him/herself on that site.
This means the payment is

1. Voluntary

Like hell it is when they will take if off you or jail you if you dont pay it.

The level of payment is voluntary.

Another lie.

Move to a lower LVT area and you pay less.

You can stupidly claim that income tax is voluntary because if
you dont like paying income tax, you can just stop working etc.

Its STILL a tax.

Full LVT has people paying for the full price for the services they personally receive,

They dont recieve any with unused land.

They receive the benefits of the location.

Not with unused land they dont.

in the way that they do in the consumer, labour and capital markets.

Pigs arse they do, most obviously with voluntary labor.

They do.

They dont.

Read again.

It stays drivel no matter how often its read.

LVT does not tax your garden - all LVT does is make you to honour your obligation to pay for the services you
receive,

Even sillier with unused land.

The person at the location get the benefits of that location.

There is no person at the location with unused land, fool.

rather than sponge off tenant families who pay the full rent of their location PLUS taxes on their wages which are
used, in part, to subsidise the landowner.

Yeah, yeah, lets kill all the landlords and kulaks, eh comrade ?

The simple fact is that landowners and sponge of non-landowners.

Yeah, yeah, lets kill all the landlords and kulaks, eh comrade ?

It is not difficult to understand

Yeah, yeah, lets kill all the landlords and kulaks, eh comrade ?

LVT is the "Single Tax"

Nope, not one country or even region is actually
stupid enough to do their LVT that way.

Powerful landowning vested interest stops it.

Another bare faced lie.

What actually stops it is even the stupidest politican
knows how long they would last if they were that stupid.

Look at British history.

Yep. If you didnt like the Poll Tax riots, you aint seen nothing if the pollys
were actually stupid enough to have JUST an LVT and no other taxes.

One of land struggle and still going on. A handful of families treat the whole country like their own private estate.

Yeah, yeah, lets kill all the landlords and kulaks and aristos, eh comrade ?

- meaning we fund public services out of the value that is created by those services.

We clearly dont when not one country or even region
is actually stupid enough to do their LVT that way.

Many do in fact.

Nope.

Hong Kong for sure.

Nope, it had income tax from 1940 and other taxes ever since it happened.

Taiwan, Singapore. Auss, USA, Denmark. Estonia.

All of those have lots of other taxes.

You have been told

You have lied till you are blue in the face.

Tim Streater wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Rod Speed wrote

In practice with modern citys where there is very little bare land available

cities. Oh, and fairies, too.

Nope, I choose to spell like that. You get to like it or lump it.

**** off then, Fred.

Go and **** yourself, Timmy.

Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:
"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
Cracked it!! Buy the biggest ****ing Winnebago ever. Just cruise around
man. No tax to pay ever.
But you pay parking costs, etc, etc.

But parking prices are already the maximumm that the market will bear and
(apparently) many prominent economics professors swear blind that it's
completely impossible for the owner of the land to pass it onto the users
of the land ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

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

And LVT would do nothing to stop any of that ...

Wayne Rooney could pay zero tax if he lived in a cardboard box in a doorway.

Or he could just stay in high priced hotels all the time as their
pricing is set at the highest that the market will bear and increased
taxation due to LVT wouldn't (according to you) result in an increase in
their fees ...

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.

Or he could buy income producing assets and pay no taxes at all according
to you ...

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

Paying 0% is fair???
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Andrew May wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

There is nothing simpler than LVT. Only one tax. Reclaiming the
annual value rate of land and no other taxes.

I have asked you this before and you didn't answer. How do you value
the _land_ on which a house is built?

In theory you look at the price bare land is sold for and try to find
something comparable to the land under the house location wise etc.

Bare land with or without planning permission ?
In practice with modern citys where there is very little bare land available
anywhere except the extreme outskirts etc, its one hell of an abortion/guess.


When we bought our house the value of the land was shown separately - it
reduced the stamp duty.
Multiplying it by the same factor as the inflation of the house value it
would now be worth £50k
So under this weirdo's scheme at 100% LVT that would be my tax per
annnum.

Sell the house/ - I wouldn't be able to give it away.
--
hugh

In message , Andrew May
writes
On 20/03/2012 16:27, Rod Speed wrote:
Andrew May wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

There is nothing simpler than LVT. Only one tax. Reclaiming the
annual value rate of land and no other taxes.

I have asked you this before and you didn't answer. How do you value
the _land_ on which a house is built?

In theory you look at the price bare land is sold for and try to find
something comparable to the land under the house location wise etc.

In practice with modern citys where there is very little bare land available
anywhere except the extreme outskirts etc, its one hell of an abortion/guess.


But the value of a bare piece of land is only that of farmland unless
it has planning permission, in which case the value depends on what the
planning permission is for. So, a bare piece of land is valued as farm
land. The same piece with planning permission for a two-bedroom
bungalow has a higher value. But if it has planning permission for a
16-storey office block it is higher still.

But, the land on which most houses stand does not have planning
permission to build anything[1]. So the value must, by definition, be
that of farmland. You could argue that if it already has a house on it
should be valued based on an assumption that it would get planning
permission to build a house. But if you do that you open up a whole new
can of worms. If I own a site with no planning permission that has
never been built on in the middle of a town what is it worth? The value
as farmland? The value with a house on (in which case what size or how
many) or the value with an office block on. I could apply to build any
of those but until I do what I would be allowed to is a matter of speculation.

[1] Planning permission lapses after typically five years. If I knock
down an existing house there is no guarantee that I will get permission
to build another.

You gotta ave PP to knock down your house guv.
--
hugh

On 20/03/12 09:42, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:21:29 +0000 Djc wrote :
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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent says,
using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and nothing I can do
will change that. If I decide I need $350 because of current interest
rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that price it will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness or
otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or less as
compared to alternative investments.


Which is what I said.

In the long run either the tax is passed on or there is nothing to rent.

--
djc

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Andrew May wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Djc wrote

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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent
says, using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and
nothing I can do will change that. If I decide I need $350 because
of current interest rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that
price it will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness
or otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or
less as compared to alternative investments.

Now imagine the govt introduces a rental property tax of, let's say $100.

A rental tax? Not very bright. A reclaim charge on the rental "value"
of the "land".

No such animal.

In an apartment only the landowner pays.

Wrong, as always.

He will push some onto the apartments, but not all.

Wrong, as always.

If the block is commonhold, then say 100 flats, then the LVT on the
land is split by 100.

If the rental value per ann. drops then the LVT drops,

Nope, the LAND VALUE hasnt changed.

conversely if it is raised then LVT rises.

Nope, the LAND VALUE hasnt changed.

The market dictates the level of LVT - self regulating.

Nope, the LAND VALUE hasnt changed.


FFS are you basing it on LAND VALUE or RENTAL VALUE or the LAND
Make your ****ing mind up.
--
hugh

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Tony Bryer wrote
Djc wrote

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.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent
says, using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and nothing
I can do will change that. If I decide I need $350 because of
current interest rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that price it
will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness
or otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or
less as compared to alternative investments.

If you lease a flat, that is you do not own the land. The flat is
Capital is an"investment". If you own the land then you are a
parasite (economic term). The tax system can make parasites divert
their money to enterprise and productive use.

How odd that it doesnt in Australia that has had an LVT for more than a
century.

Nice theory, pity about what actually happens in the real world.


Economists and socialists don't live in the real world, Rod
--
hugh

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Doctor Drivel wrote
Rod Speed wrote

A tax is a levy into the state which you do not know where is going.

Thats just plain wrong. Some taxes are allocated to specific uses.

It is not a tax then.
It's a hypothecated tax. Often talked about, not often implemented.
The State pension element of NI contributions is an example.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

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

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

But you pay parking costs, etc, et

No no. I park in a field and start an illegal travellers site. No taxes
charges or anything to pay at all. Then the local council comes along and
puts in hard standing, a shower block laundry facilities etc. No worries.

That is the case right now! Duh!

In a traveller site the land owner will pay the LVT. This of course will be
partially recouped in charging for the caravan berths. LVT would eliminate
illegal traveller sites.
Rubbish the value of the land would go down.
Whatever land they setup on someone will be paying
LVT, as "all" land has LVT due. If the authorities do not remove the
caravans the owner could refuse to pay the LVT until they are removed.
Currently travellers setting up on any uncultivated - the land is not LVT'd
and no tax whatsoever is paid for by the landowner. Currently the landowner
does not lose.

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

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

--
hugh

In message , Alistair Gunn
writes
Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:
"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
Cracked it!! Buy the biggest ****ing Winnebago ever. Just cruise around
man. No tax to pay ever.
But you pay parking costs, etc, etc.

But parking prices are already the maximumm that the market will bear and
(apparently) many prominent economics professors swear blind that it's
completely impossible for the owner of the land to pass it onto the users
of the land ...
Well some people swear by prominent economics professors you know.
Personally I think they talk a load of ******** most of the time.
They're like weather forecasters - never held to account for all their
erroneous predictions
--
hugh

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

The Aussies need to get that right. True LVT is the "rental value" not
the
land value.

So you want to go back to the rates system, why didn't you just say you
wanted to go back to twenty years ago rather than invent LVT which isn't
LVT.

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

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

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

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

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

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

hugh wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Andrew May wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

There is nothing simpler than LVT. Only one tax. Reclaiming the annual value rate of land and no other taxes.

I have asked you this before and you didn't answer. How do you value the _land_ on which a house is built?

In theory you look at the price bare land is sold for and try to find
something comparable to the land under the house location wise etc.

Bare land with or without planning permission ?

Bare land where you are allowed to build what is on the land with
the building on it that you are trying to estimate the land value of.

So with a house and land, you are allowed to build a house there.

With say a 50 story office block, you are allowed to build one of those on that bare land.

With say a very large single level shopping mall, land where you are allowed to build one of those.

Which can be one hell of a problem with some of those more uncommonly seen structures.

In practice with modern citys where there is very little bare land available anywhere except the extreme outskirts
etc, its one hell of an abortion/guess.

When we bought our house the value of the land was shown separately -
it reduced the stamp duty.

It doesnt here. Stamp duty is payable on the total price of house and
land unless they believe that you are lying about what you paid for it, say
because you handed over cash on the side that you didnt mention as well,
or bought it from your relos and didnt pay full market value for it etc.

Multiplying it by the same factor as the inflation of the house value
it would now be worth £50k

So under this weirdo's scheme at 100% LVT that would be my tax per annnum.

Sell the house/ - I wouldn't be able to give it away.

Yeah, thats why I keep saying that if you didnt like the poll tax riots,
you aint seen nothing with what everyone would be doing if the pollys
were actually stupid enough to go that route.

Even Maggie Thatcher in her cups wasnt actually THAT stupid.

hugh wrote
Andrew May wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Andrew May wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

There is nothing simpler than LVT. Only one tax. Reclaiming the annual value rate of land and no other taxes.

I have asked you this before and you didn't answer. How do you value the _land_ on which a house is built?

In theory you look at the price bare land is sold for and try to find something comparable to the land under the
house location wise etc.

In practice with modern citys where there is very little bare land
available anywhere except the extreme outskirts etc, its one hell
of an abortion/guess.

But the value of a bare piece of land is only that of farmland unless
it has planning permission, in which case the value depends on what
the planning permission is for. So, a bare piece of land is valued as farm land. The same piece with planning
permission for a two-bedroom
bungalow has a higher value. But if it has planning permission for a
16-storey office block it is higher still.

But, the land on which most houses stand does not have planning
permission to build anything[1]. So the value must, by definition, be
that of farmland. You could argue that if it already has a house on it should be valued based on an assumption that
it would get planning
permission to build a house. But if you do that you open up a whole
new can of worms. If I own a site with no planning permission that has never been built on in the middle of a town
what is it worth? The
value as farmland? The value with a house on (in which case what size or how many) or the value with an office block
on. I could apply to build any of those but until I do what I would be allowed to is a matter of speculation.

[1] Planning permission lapses after typically five years. If I knock down an existing house there is no guarantee
that I will get permission to build another.

You gotta ave PP to knock down your house guv.

Not if you arrange for it to burn down and get ordered to make the site safe afterwards.