"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel drivelled
John Williamson wrote
hugh wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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.

An element may be LVT,

You originally claimed that none of it could be.

Read again sirry irriot.

You are just plain THICK!

Do you own land? You never answered!

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

Speak to LVT expert in Auss

Been there, done that.

They must have just laughed you.

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

How odd that its called a land value.

Fool.

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, driveller.

A fool is a fool!

Sirry irriot, do you own land?

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Andrew May wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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?

As they do now. A house is worth £300K. The insurance company
estimate a house rebuilt at £100K. Take one from the other.

Thats not how land value is calculated now.

Estate agents and insurance companies do it very well.

Pity it aint land value.

Sirry irriot! Many countries around the world mange to do it easily enough.
Auss has it on-line. Sirry irriot!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

look...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Denmark

They arent actually stupid enough to have JUST an LVT, liar.

Denmark..

'LVT was introduced. Land speculation ceased immediately.

Just because some fool claims something in wankipedia doesnt make it
gospel, stupid.

That is in fact a bare faced lie.

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

The economic effects of the cessation of land speculation were
astounding and aroused much attention. On the 2nd October, 1960, the New
York Times headlined, "Big Lesson from a Small Nation",'

Just more utterly mindless drivel by some stupid pig ignorant journo.

And at that time Denmark actually had a marginal income tax
rate that was over 100%. Yes, over 100%, thats not a typo.

They eventually came to their senses on that.

"Prior to 1960, "Georgist" beliefs dictated that when a heavy "tax" is
levied upon land value, land price will decrease. The consequences of
full employment, no inflation, no foreign debt, increasing production and
rising real wages however, brought about a prodigious demand for homes,
enterprises and of course land. Land prices did not initially fall, as
was predicted. In fact land prices rose. "

And they wouldnt if the LVT was the ONLY tax and the LVT rate would
have to be so immense that no one would be stupid enough to own land.

LVT was by far the prime tax. Land price should fall.

And for some odd reason, NO ONE actually copied Denmark at that time.

Look at the link. It gives many countries. Who is a sirry irriot then? Do
you own land?

See above...Denmark

They werent actually stupid enough to have JUST and LVT and no other
taxation at all.

The aim was 100% LVT. LVT was the the prime tax.

Do you own land?

Yep. Yeah, yeah, I know, off to the gulag for me, eh comrade ?

No wonder. You are so think you think you would be worse off, when the
opposite is the case. You are so thick you think free-market LVT is
Communist. That is how thick you are.

Look at the what this large landowner thinks of LVT - but unlike you he has
brains. An expert on it and promotes it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=XtZ-uOaLZdA

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

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.

Only what the market will bare. He can try but in 99.9% of cases he
will fail to pass on the lot.

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

Sirry irriot!

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, driveller.

You are a Sirry irriot! Not very bright,incapable of learn and just plain
stupid.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
djc 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.

Which is what I said.

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

If the location is desirable there wil be a renter

But no one actually stupid enough to be a landlord there.

That never occured in Denmark.

They werent actually stupid enough to have JUST an LVT and no other taxes.

The landlord does not pay tax on his earning, so many landlords would want to rent there.

Nope, not when there is JUST an LVT and no other taxes, because then
the LVT would have to be immense to collect the same total in taxes.

snip drivel

Yours, yep.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
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.

You really do not know.

Wota stunning like in rational argument you have there, driveller.

You could not debate as long as you have hole in your rear end. You are a sirry irriot!

Wota stunning like in rational argument you have there, driveller.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
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.

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 ...

In a motorhome you can get away with no LVT, but you have other costs.

Nothing like the cost of an LVT

But a motorhopme is not big with two floors and two bathrooms.

Some of them are. I've seen more than one like that.

Another one you could drive your small car into, basically includes the garage as well.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
hugh wrote

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.

Know all the tricks don't you?

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work that one out for yourself.

And the arsehole landowner can leave he land and pay no tax whatsoever

Thats a lie, he has to pay the rates etc.

and in 10 years time make a killing for doing NOTHING, while keep land, which is owned by the Crown,

Like hell it is.

from being productive.

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

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

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

True.

Do they live in your sirry irriot world? Surrounded by thickos?

Nope yours, surrouinded by thicko liars like you.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Andrew May wrote
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,

Not if there is JUST an LVT and no other taxation so the LVT
would have to be immense to raise the same total TAX revenue.

Hardly anyone would actually be stupid enough to own any land.

so demand for rental accommodation will be less.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

More accommodation will be sold onto the ower/occupier sector.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

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.

There is certainly no simpler way to absolutely guaranteed political suicide, yes.

Only one tax.

So it would have to raise what is currently collected in all other forms of tax.

So the LVT would be immense on residential property, so no one would be
able to afford to pay it, so they would all abandom all the residential property.

Sure, that would then be available to squatters, but I doubt too many
of the voters would be too keen on becoming squatters overnight.

Reclaiming the annual value rate of land and no other taxes.

Or not when no one would actually be stupid enough to go that route.

And anyone being that stupid wouldnt be a polly for long.

Or some recommend setting the rate on the more accurate annual "rental value", which is by the way.

Still cant possibly raise the same total revenue as all the current taxes do without being immense.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:56:40 +0000 Andrew May wrote :
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.

There would be fewer rental properties on the market, which would tend to
push rents up. But it would also take BTL buyers out of the market which
would increase the supply of owner-occupied property, so at the margin
those who might have rented would now find it more worthwhile to buy.

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

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:25:08 +1100 Rod Speed wrote :
Thats in addition to the LVT thats what the rates are
because the rates are determined by the value of the land.

No, a *Land Value* Tax is just that, a tax on the value of the
land, regardless of what is put on it. The argument for a LVT
is that it encourages landowners to maximise the use of their
land (within the constraints of PP etc) and penalises
landbanking and the like.

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

Doctor Drivel drivelled
hugh ] wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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.

Nope, because no one would actually be stupid enough to own that
land with the immense LVT that they'd have to pay if it was the only tax.

It would in fact then become the property of the govt when no one
wants it because no one is stupid enough to pay the LVT on it.

This of course will be partially recouped in charging for the caravan berths.

Not even possible with the immense amount of LVT owning on that property.

LVT would eliminate illegal traveller sites.

Just another bare faced pig igorant lie.

It doesnt do that in any place that has an LVT right now.

Whatever land they setup on someone will be paying LVT,

Nope, because no one will be stupid enough to own any land
when that means that they have to pay an immense LVT on it.

as "all" land has LVT due.

Yes, but not all land has anyone actually stupid enough
to own it when it has an immense LVT due on it.

If the authorities do not remove the caravans the owner could refuse to pay the LVT until they are removed.

And get frog marched off to jail if they are stupid enough to try that.

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.

Corse they do when they cant use that land themselves and
get the arsehole gypsys stealiing anything that aint nailed down.

If travellers decide they want to settle on a legitimate field,

What's an illegitimate field ?

then LVT is due on the field.

Not if its public land, stupid.

Then travellers for the first time ever will be paying into HMG.

Nope, because no one will be stupid enough to own it when
some fool like you wants to slug them the immense LVT that
would be required to collect the same total tax as currently.

And the initially immense LVT would have to go thru
the roof as everyone with even half a clue abandons
all land ownership because they cant pay the LVT due.

So the whole scheme ends up in cloud cuckooland than only some
stupid academic could dream up and no polly is stupid enough to go for.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:25:08 +1100 Rod Speed wrote :
Thats in addition to the LVT thats what the rates are
because the rates are determined by the value of the land.

No, a *Land Value* Tax is just that, a tax on the value of the
land, regardless of what is put on it. The argument for a LVT
is that it encourages landowners to maximise the use of their
land (within the constraints of PP etc) and penalises
landbanking and the like.

Yep! It is amazing how many just can't figure out something so simple.

Tony Bryer wrote
Andrew May wrote

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.

There would be fewer rental properties on the market, which
would tend to push rents up. But it would also take BTL buyers
out of the market which would increase the supply of owner-
occupied property, so at the margin those who might have
rented would now find it more worthwhile to buy.

There are unlikely to be anything like as many new BLT buyers
choosing noit to do that as landlords deciding to stop being landlords.

And that scenariio wouldnt happen with just an LVT and no other taxes at all.

You would in fact find that hardly anyone would be able to pay
the immense LVT that would be needed to raise the same total
tax revenue as is currently raised with all sorts of taxation.

Tony Bryer wrote
Rod Speed 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 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.

No,

Yep.

a *Land Value* Tax is just that, a tax on the
value of the land, regardless of what is put on it.

That is precisely what council rates that are based on the land value are.

The argument for a LVT is that it encourages landowners
to maximise the use of their land (within the constraints of PP etc)

And thats always been the argument for basing
the rates on the land value as is done in Australia.

and penalises landbanking and the like.

And thats always been the argument for basing
the rates on the land value as is done in Australia.

On 21/03/12 01:08, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:56:40 +0000 Andrew May wrote :
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.

There would be fewer rental properties on the market, which would tend to
push rents up. But it would also take BTL buyers out of the market which
would increase the supply of owner-occupied property, so at the margin
those who might have rented would now find it more worthwhile to buy.


Except that those buying would be liable to tax.

--
djc

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
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.

An element may be LVT, but not all. When moving over from this current
broken system to LVT, the landlord cannot pass on LVT, as if he tried to
pass on all of it by raising the rents, it implies he was charging below
market value.

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. ;-)

Pay attention. But the rich would be in locations with higher land values so
pay more LVT.

So the rich would be in England and the poor would all be in Scotland,
so if Scotland gets independence (BACK ON TOPIC) that would get rid of
the poverty problem.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
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.

An element may be LVT, but not all. When moving over from this current
broken system to LVT, the landlord cannot pass on LVT, as if he tried to
pass on all of it by raising the rents, it implies he was charging below
market value.

As the tax is the same for all landowners,

Oh FFS!!! LVT is set by the "value" of the land!!! You have been
repeatedly told that. One plot may cost more than another and be 1/2 mile
away.

Oh FFS!!! You have repeatedly said it is set by the rental value of the
land.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
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.

Only what the market will bare. He can try but in 99.9% of cases he
will fail to pass on the lot.


No you said and quoted eminent economists who yo said couldn't possibly
be fools that it was impossible to pass on LVT.
To be a god driveller/liar yo have to have a good memory.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
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

You made that up.
Yeh, I create everything I write, unlike you who copies and plagiarises.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
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 ...

In a motorhome you can get away with no LVT, but you have other costs.
Also you can't live in prime location where top paid jobs are.
I'm retired, ****wit.
--
hugh

In message , John Williamson
writes
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
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.

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 ...

In a motorhome you can get away with no LVT, but you have other costs.

Nothing like the cost of an LVT
But a motorhopme is not big with two floors and two bathrooms. You
sirry
irriot!

I've seen a motorhome with two floors, two shower rooms and three
bedrooms. It had about 650 square feet of usable floor space, which is
nearly as much as the house I'm sitting in now.

And room underneath to hold a Merc on a slide-out tray.
--
hugh

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
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.

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 ...

In a motorhome you can get away with no LVT, but you have other costs.

Nothing like the cost of an LVT

But a motorhopme is not big with two floors and two bathrooms.

Some of them are. I've seen more than one like that.

Another one you could drive your small car into, basically includes the
garage as well.


Anybody want to buy a £300k house with LVT of about £50k per annum? I'm
off to place my order before Drivel becomes P.M.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
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 ...

Oh my God. Another one hard of thinking. Don't you what speculators and
what they do?

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 ...

He could indeed. Good thinking. But he will pay the hotel fees all
his life - a form of rent. He does not security of tenure either. They
can throw homout at any time. When the house is paid off he only pays
LVT for the land.

Or eh could simply **** off and live somewhere without LVT - IOM,
Ireland and fly into Manchester for training and match days.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Andrew May" wrote in message
...
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?

As they do now. A house is worth £300K. The insurance company estimate a
house rebuilt at £100K. Take one from the other. Estate agents and insurance
companies do it very well.

Idiot, the value of something is not determined by the production cost.
--
hugh

hugh wrote
Doctor drivelled
John Williamson wrote
hugh wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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.

An element may be LVT, but not all. When moving over from this
current broken system to LVT, the landlord cannot pass on LVT, as if he tried to pass on all of it by raising the
rents, it implies he
was charging below market value.

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. ;-)

Pay attention. But the rich would be in locations with higher land values so pay more LVT.

So the rich would be in England

Nope, they'd **** off to europe which wouldnt be stupid enough to have just an LVT.

and the poor would all be in Scotland,

Nope. All house owners in britain would be destituted by an LVT that was
the only tax and so had to raise all the current tax revenue with an LVT.

so if Scotland gets independence (BACK ON TOPIC)

Too radical.

that would get rid of the poverty problem.

Fraid not. With just an LVT, there would be no one actually stupid enough
to own any land, so they would all be squatters, the epitomy of poverty
except in the sense that some beggars can be better off than you might think.

hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
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.

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 ...

In a motorhome you can get away with no LVT, but you have other costs.

Nothing like the cost of an LVT

But a motorhopme is not big with two floors and two bathrooms. You sirry irriot!

I've seen a motorhome with two floors, two shower rooms and three
bedrooms. It had about 650 square feet of usable floor space, which
is nearly as much as the house I'm sitting in now.

And room underneath to hold a Merc on a slide-out tray.

Most of ours just use a heavy V thing and tow it behind the motorhome with that.

I did see one as big as a semi where you could just drive the small car into the back.

hugh wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
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.

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 ...

In a motorhome you can get away with no LVT, but you have other costs.

Nothing like the cost of an LVT

But a motorhopme is not big with two floors and two bathrooms.

Some of them are. I've seen more than one like that.

Another one you could drive your small car into, basically includes the garage as well.

Anybody want to buy a £300k house with LVT of about £50k per annum?

The LVT would in fact have to be rather higher than that to collect all
the tax thats currently collected, allowing for the hordes that would just
abandon all the land they currently own so they dont have to pay the LVT

The best approach would be to organise a swap with the
neighbours so that legally you are squatting in what they
used to own and they are squatting in what they used to own.

What you save on the LVT would pay for a lot of food for the Rottweillers.

I'm off to place my order before Drivel becomes P.M.

He wont be coming, the death squad has its orders.

Damned yugoslavs, gone to the dogs since Tito carked it.

hugh wrote:
In message , John Williamson
writes
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
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.

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 ...

In a motorhome you can get away with no LVT, but you have other costs.

Nothing like the cost of an LVT
But a motorhopme is not big with two floors and two bathrooms. You
sirry
irriot!

I've seen a motorhome with two floors, two shower rooms and three
bedrooms. It had about 650 square feet of usable floor space, which is
nearly as much as the house I'm sitting in now.

And room underneath to hold a Merc on a slide-out tray.

Nah, that one's only got 300 square feet and costs twice as much. It's
nice, though.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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

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.

Nope, because no one would actually be stupid enough to own that
land with the immense LVT that they'd have to pay if it was the only tax.

Your really are dumb.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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.

Thatcher was 100% stupid all of the time - FACT!


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

that would get rid of the poverty problem.

Fraid not. With just an LVT, there would be no one actually stupid enough
to own any land, so they would all be squatters, the epitomy of poverty
except in the sense that some beggars can be better off than you might
think.

You really are dumb!


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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

You are just plain THICK!


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

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

Still cant possibly raise the same total revenue as all the current taxes
do without being immense.

You are just plain THICK!


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote

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.

Thatcher was 100% stupid all of the time - FACT!

Nope.

She handled the Falklands well.

She put one hell of a bomb under the coal miners.

Her pollicy of flogging council houses to the occupants made a lot of sense.

Rod Speed wrote:
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote

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.

Thatcher was 100% stupid all of the time - FACT!

Nope.

She handled the Falklands well.

She put one hell of a bomb under the coal miners.

Her pollicy of flogging council houses to the occupants made a lot of sense.


A policy of flogging the occupants to the houses would have made great TV.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote

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.

Thatcher was 100% stupid all of the time - FACT!

Nope.

She handled the Falklands well.

She put one hell of a bomb under the coal miners.

Her pollicy of flogging council houses to the occupants made a lot of sense.

A policy of flogging the occupants to the houses would have made great TV.

She publiclly flogged her Tory MPs instead and that made even better TV.

Corse once she was actually stupid enough to propose
the poll tax, thats that got her assassinated quick smart.

Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:
"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
Or do they now have a higher disposable income that
may get wiped out by the rent increser as their landlord
doesn't want to rent out at a loss ...
The landlord can only charge what the market will bare. Or he gets out of
renting.

If the tennants are currently willing to pay, for example, £400/month in
rent and £83/month (averaged over 12 months) in council tax why would
they be unwilling to pay £483/month in rent and £0/month in council tax
for the same property?

Hang, is that wrenching sound the goalposts being moved? I thought you'd
been saying that *none* of the LVT would get passed on?
The amount will be small. Not the full whack.

So it was the goalposts being moved from their previous "LVT can't be
passed on" to the new position of "some of the LVT will be passed on, but
most of it won't"? With the same lack of supporting evidence I note ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...