Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:
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 current market value being set by what people are prepared to pay,
and what they are prepared to pay is influenced by how much money they
have available. If all other taxes have been eliminted then people's
disposable income will have increased, in which case the amount they'd be
prepared to spend renting is likely to increase ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
You originally claimed that none of it could be.
Read again sirry irriot.

In message you wrote "Read what I
posted. LVT cannot be passed on.", but now you're claiming that at least
some of it would be ...

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-i-y/msg/2bcce69e64980f5e
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Doctor Drivel twisted the electrons to say:
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?

WTF does "Don't you what speculators" mean?

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.

As opposed to paying the LVT form of rent? Average of ~#2.5m per km^2
seems worth avoiding ...

He does not security of tenure either. They can throw homout at any time.

So he signs a long term contract ...

Or he could buy income producing assets and pay no taxes at all according
to you ...
He could but if he buys land he pays LVT. Simple.

There are plenty of income producing assets other than land ...

That is very fair. The wealthy then pay their fair share instead of
clawing
Paying 0% is fair???
Which 0% are you on about? Wayne Rooney in a cardboard box?

Or Wayne Rooney living in motoryacht, or living in a hotel, or renting
whilst his income producing assets imply no tax requirement for him and
there's no expenditure related taxation ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

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

Yeah ... And allegedly Manchester Airport is already charging the
maximum possible landing fee that the market will bear, so the cost of
the flights won't be increased! LOL
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote

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?

Trouble is that with is hare brained scheme of replacing all taxes
including income tax with an LVT, what the tenant would have to
pay would be MUCH higher than what its currently paying.

Like 10 times more at least.

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 ...

Alistair Gunn wrote:
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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 current market value being set by what people are prepared
to pay, and what they are prepared to pay is influenced by how much
money they have available. If all other taxes have been eliminted then
people's disposable income will have increased, in which case the
amount they'd be prepared to spend renting is likely to increase ...

But the LVT would be immense if it had to collect the same total
as all taxes currently do, so it wouldnt be viable to own any property
unless you are stinking rich, and even then, it would be a lot more
viable to own foreign property that doesnt have a stupid LVT too.

And thats why it wont happen. Its just drug crazed fantasy from
stupid academics who dont have a ****ing clue about political realitys.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Many would have deserved it.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"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.

Dennis, please do not think.


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

The Irish are about to implement SVT (Site Value Tax). Land Value Tax on a
local level replacing the equiv of Council Tax.

http://smarttaxes.org/

They will have High Level Group meeting this Thursday. They will report
their advice on a land value tax within a couple of weeks. If they
recommend SVT, it could be implemented within the year.

It looks like the Irish are way ahead of us.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/4130922...2012++copy.pdf

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.

What an idiot. Her incompetence brought about the war. It was
obvious from January 1982 the Argies were going to invade. The US
warned London. She was told and did NOTHING. Wanting a war to get
back in power. And all the fool who got Council house for next to
nothing, while the rest of had to pay full whack voted for her like
sheep.

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

She manipulated the free-market by manipulating LABOUR. LABOUR is one
of the products of production - no doubt you haven't a clue what I am
on about being thick.

She drove down wages so much the economy was in danger of dropping
through the floor because their was little demand for goods. So she
opened up the credit so all were heavily in debt and in
2008....KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

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

In her tiny eyes as it got her voted in when she should have been
kicked out. Giving away public owned wealth was criminal. I had to
buy my place, no one gave me to it.

The woman, like her followers, was a total idiot.

You are a sirry irriot!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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.

You are just plain THICK!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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.

You are just plain THICK!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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.

You are just plain THICK!

"Rod Speed" or one of his many personalities drivelled on.

Land speculation is horendously damaging.

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

Moron, it does the OPPOSITE!!!

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

Moron, again.... it does the OPPOSITE!!!

Land speculation caused the 2008 crash.

Like hell it did. It was ACTUALLY caused by interest rates

The "root cause" was caused by LAND SPECULATION!!!!

Wrong, as always.

Moron....again...."The "root cause" was caused by LAND SPECULATION!!!!"

Debt after debt was poured into LAND.

Wrong, as always.

Moron, again...."Debt after debt was poured into LAND."

Because gains were tax free.

Not in the US they arent, fool.

Mopron, again...."Because gains were tax free."

Tax land, all land, by its value and this doe not occur

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

Only 4.5% of the land value tax come from the land. They never taxed it
enough!!! That is why. Also in areas were the LVT was higher the impact was
less.

The local version of LVT is called SVT. Sirry Irriot please look....

http://smarttaxes.org/site-value-tax/

"What is the Difference to a Property Tax?

Site Value Tax differs from a property tax in that the property tax is
imposed on the value of a property (i.e. the building and the site), while
Site Value Tax is based only on the value of the site or land in the
property parcel. Land value derives from location and service access,
meaning that, for instance, a site in a central location with good transport
will pay more than a relatively isolated site. It would also apply to
undeveloped zoned land, empty building sites and derelict sites.

What are the Economic Benefits?

Unlike other taxes, Site Value Tax does not impose a cost on economically
beneficial activity, as VAT does on consumption or PRSI does on employment.
Instead, it charges for the benefits of the land's particular location,
which is not created by individual land-owners. Location benefit comes from
access to services, be they publicly-funded infrastructure and amenities
(roads, schools, parks, etc.), or the community at large (shops, etc.).
Site Value Tax enables the investment that creates this location benefit to
be returned to the community rather than to the private land-owner.

In contrast to commercial rates or other property taxes, the investment of
landowners to improve their property is not taxed. Site Value Tax recognises
that this type of investment is productive, and should not be discouraged.
What should be discouraged is unproductive activity such as land
speculation. Since Site Value Tax taxes all zoned land, it discourages land
hoarding and speculation.

Site Value Tax will also replace transaction taxes such as Stamp Duties,
Development Levies and Part V type obligations. These are a barrier to the
purchase and sale of land, which means that some land-owners will hold onto
their land without being able to develop. Instead, we should encourage such
landowners to sell their land if they are unable to develop profitably, and
so create a clearer market in development land.

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

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?

Trouble is that with is hare brained scheme of replacing all taxes
including income tax with an LVT, what the tenant would have to
pay would be MUCH higher

Sirry Irriot! It would be much lower.

"Rod Speed" or one of his many aliases drivelled...

Alistair Gunn wrote:
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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 current market value being set by what people are prepared
to pay, and what they are prepared to pay is influenced by how much
money they have available. If all other taxes have been eliminted then
people's disposable income will have increased, in which case the
amount they'd be prepared to spend renting is likely to increase ...

But the LVT would be immense if it had to collect the same total
as all taxes currently do,

Sirry idiot! Studies in The UK put it that a man on £40,000 per ann would
be £6,000 better off and all revenue collected by HMG. It will all be
collected as land cannot be taken off-shore.

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
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?

What is your point? The tenant only cares about the bottom line.

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 ...

What you were saying was that in transition all the LVT would be passed on,
which is nonsense, as he is charging the maximum right now, so cannot charge
more. If the landlord's tax is higher he bares the cost. Many will get out
and sell to owner/occupiers. Which is what we want, then the parasite can
put his money where it is productive.

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

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?

WTF does "Don't you what speculators" mean?

You don't know what speculators do?

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.

As opposed to paying the LVT form of rent?

Yes. LVT is sform of rent to HMG - not a tax. After all the Queen owns all
the land

He does not have security of tenure either.
They can throw homout at any time.

So he signs a long term contract ...

He can. But the hotel owner pays teh LVT for for the land

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

He could but if he buys land he pays LVT. Simple.

There are plenty of income producing assets other than land ...

Then he goes into economic gain enterprise. LVT forces people to do that,
instead of being a parasite. Land was not made by man, nature made it. It
is owned by us all - commonwealth. Anyone who makes money from our
commonwealth must us - LVT is the ideal mechanism.

That is very fair. The wealthy then pay their
fair share instead of clawing

Paying 0% is fair???

Which 0% are you on about? Wayne Rooney in a cardboard box?

Or Wayne Rooney living in motoryacht,
or living in a hotel, or renting

Wayne renting or living on yacht does not impact on what we own. He does not
deprive anyone from land, our land which we all own. Churchill said
something very similar.

whilst his income producing assets
imply no tax requirement for him and
there's no expenditure related taxation ...

He puts into society and takes nothing out currently when renting.
Currently, when he has a big house on a large plot he extracts the economic
growth that was created by the community which soaked into his land and
crystallised as land values. He then takes a lot out. Currently he
appropriates public wealth for private gain. With LVT that publicly created
wealth is reclaimed. Get it?

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

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

Ireland is implementing soon, local LVT, SVT.

Wayne could live abroad and fly in. However he would be better off under
LVT, as his house will be lower in price in the long run. Then he could
afford a large lower priced house.

"djc" wrote in message
...
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.

Not purchase tax. Just a an annual tax on the value of the land only. The
landowner pays - no one else.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote

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?

What is your point? The tenant only cares about the bottom line.

And with an LVT thats the only tax in the country,
they wouldnt be able to rent anything, not even a hovel.

There would however be plenty of places they can squat in for free
if you dont count the food for the rotweiler to keep other squatters out.

And you'd need to keep feeding the rotty, otherwise it will lunch on your kids etc.

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 ...

What you were saying was that in transition all the LVT would be
passed on, which is nonsense, as he is charging the maximum right
now, so cannot charge more. If the landlord's tax is higher he bares
the cost. Many will get out and sell to owner/occupiers.

No one would be stupid enough to want to buy it when the LVT which
is the only tax in the entire country would be completely unaffordable.

Which is what we want, then the parasite can put his money where it is productive.

Its productive already. There are plenty too poorly paid to be able to afford
to buy a house, and plenty more who have decided that they would rather
rent for various reason like they dont plan to be there for long etc etc etc.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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?

WTF does "Don't you what speculators" mean?

Its just drivel, unsurprisingly.

You don't know what speculators do?

He never learnt gibberish.

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.

As opposed to paying the LVT form of rent?

Yes. LVT is sform of rent to HMG - not a tax.

How odd that the last letter stands for tax.

After all the Queen owns all the land

Only in your pathetic little cloud cuckooland.

He does not have security of tenure either.
They can throw homout at any time.

So he signs a long term contract ...

He can. But the hotel owner pays teh LVT for for the land

Nope, just abandons the land because an LVT thats
the only TAX in the country is completely unaffordable.

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

He could but if he buys land he pays LVT. Simple.

There are plenty of income producing assets other than land ...

Then he goes into economic gain enterprise.

There are plenty of assets that arent.

LVT forces people to do that, instead of being a parasite.

Only in your pathetic little cloud cuckooland.

In the real world, they just own land in places that arent actually stupid
enough to have an LVT thats the only TAX in the entire country.

Land was not made by man, nature made it.

Varys with the land. Some land like where the latest Hong
Kong airport is was indeed made into suitable land by man.

It is owned by us all - commonwealth.

You previously stupidly and pig ignorantly claimed that Liz owned it.

You cant even manage a consistent line in pig ignorant lies even in a single post.

Anyone who makes money from our commonwealth must us

More gibberish.

- LVT is the ideal mechanism.

How odd that NOT ONE country or even region has actually
been stupid enough to have JUST and LVT as the only TAX.

There might just be a reason for that.

That is very fair. The wealthy then pay their

fair share instead of clawing

Paying 0% is fair???

Which 0% are you on about? Wayne Rooney in a cardboard box?

Or Wayne Rooney living in motoryacht,
or living in a hotel, or renting

Wayne renting or living on yacht does not impact on what we own.

Your stupid LVT thats the only TAX in the country would have, not one
would actually be stupid enough to actually own any land, not even Liz.

He does not deprive anyone from land,

Neither does a landlord, comrade.

our land which we all own.

You previously stupidly and pig ignorantly claimed that Liz owned it all.

You cant even manage a consistent line in pig ignorant lies even in a single post.

Churchill said something very similar.

And then the voters flushed him where he belonged.,

That would happen with any polly stupid enough to have JUST
an LVT as the only TAX in the entire country, and they know it.

Which might just be why NO ONE is actually stupid enough to go that route.

Even Churchill wasnt THAT stupid.

whilst his income producing assets
imply no tax requirement for him and
there's no expenditure related taxation ...

He puts into society and takes nothing out currently when renting.
Currently, when he has a big house on a large plot he extracts the
economic growth that was created by the community which soaked into his land and crystallised as land values. He then
takes a lot out. Currently he appropriates public wealth for private gain.

Yeah, yeah, lets kill all the house owners, eh comrade ?

With LVT that publicly created wealth is reclaimed.

Nope, not when no one can afford to pay your stupid LVT thats the only TAX in the country.

Get it?

Nothing to get, comrade.

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

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?

WTF does "Don't you what speculators" mean?

Its just drivel,

This one is a complete idiot.

"Rod Speed", one of his many aliases, idioctically wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote

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?

What is your point? The tenant only cares about the bottom line.

And with an LVT thats the only tax in the country,
they wouldnt be able to rent anything, not even a hovel.

You are a TOTAL IDIOT!!!!

"Rod Speed" , one of his many aliases, idioctically wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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?

WTF does "Don't you what speculators" mean?

Its

This one is a complete idiot!!!!!!!!!!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Yours, yep.

You are just plain THICK!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

True.

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

Nope yours, surrouinded by thicko liars like you.

You are just plain THICK!

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

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?

WTF does "Don't you what speculators" mean?

Its just drivel,

This one is a complete idiot.

Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it, driveller.

And in your case its a VERY incomplete idiot too, no brain.

"Rod Speed", in one of his aliases wrote very silly thgings in message
. au...
Doctor - Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Alistair Gunn wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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?

WTF does "Don't you what speculators" mean?

Its just drivel,

This one is a complete idiot.

Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it,
driveller.

And in your case its a VERY incomplete idiot too, no brain.

YOU are VERY THICK

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Enterprise flows.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesnt.

LVT ensures enterprise DOES!!! Dummy, look at Hong Kong.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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

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

Exactly. It has all been calculated.
To bring in the cuurnt amopunt HMG needs LVT will do it briliantly.
Land cannot be taken off-shore, so cannot be avoided.
Collection costs are very small. 1/3 of revenue taken now is only 2/3
collected as 1/3 is the collection costs.
Enterprise is expanded reducing the welfare bill, so HMG needs less revenue.
Economic growth is expanded so LVT can lay in the infrstucture needed to
create the growth.

There you go you never knew any of that.

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

As they only pay LVT and are paying less in overall taxes, and land prices
will eventually settle as the economy expands faster than land, so house
prices are lower people will be INFINITELY better off.

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

Even sillier.

You are a complete IDIOT!!!!

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

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

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

Why?

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

But why is that fair?

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

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

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

In the USA the top 1% of the population own more wealth than the bottom 90%.
The USA is not much differnt. Any economist looking at that can only
conclude the existing system is not working properly. It needs fixing and
Genomics is the answer.

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

Enterprise flows.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesnt.

LVT ensures enterprise DOES!!!

Not in Australia thats had it for more than a century it doesnt always!!!!!!!!!!!

Dummy, look at Hong Kong.

It was never stupid enough to have JUST an LVT and no other TAXES at all.

"Rod Speed" in one of his aliases wrote silly things in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote
jgharston wrote
Doctor Drivel wrote

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

How would Land Valuation Taxation clear up dilapidated buildings?

All land is taxed full value on its "value". That is, if a building is on
it or not it gets taxed. It stops harmful land speculation and hoarding.

No it doesnt.

It clearly does. Look at Harrisburg USA and countless other places that have
it. Australia's version is a token version at needs expanding.

Currently a deliberately uninhabited building pay no tax. Harrisburg in
the USA cleared most derelict building very quickly using LVT.

And Australia didnt.

Parts of Auss did.

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

Why should someone who was there before the line went in pay much more tax
than they used to ?

Because the value of their land has "increased". Duh!!!! Did they increase
it? NO!!! Who did? Us with our taxes. They can tap into that land wealth
at any time. LVT reclaims community created wealth for community purposes.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Income tax is a daft as the Poll tax Land Valuation Tax is the best by a
million miles. The Single Tax. Set annually by the "value" of the
"land". You can't take land off-shore so easy and cheap to collect. You
can't take an Athens mansion off-shore, or one in Belgravia either.

You can however choose to live where they dont have just a single property
tax.

But you would not, as the economy is far greater and you pay no other taxes.
NO INCOME TAX.

Income tax takes away 30% of the tax in collection charges.

Like hell the collection charges are anything like that.

1/3 on averge on tax taken is the collection charge.

Land Value Tax prevents land speculation

Nope.

Talk to the countless place that have implemented it properly.

- land speculation caused the 1929 and 2008 crashes.

Nope, interest rates held much too low for much too long did.

Root cause was speculation in LAND!!!

It pays for infrastructure - as Hong Kong did building a metro.

They didnt have just a property tax before they were handed back to china.

Most of the revenue into Hong Kong comes from the LAND!!! And always did!!!
The most dynamic economy in the world.

snip drivel

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

Council tax valuations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are plenty of places that have had that for a century or more like
Australia.

The token implementation in Auss works in one place there is no LVT for
private residences. Equiv of no Council Tax.

Doctor Drivel drivelled and lied
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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

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

Exactly. It has all been calculated.

Nope, lied about, like you lie about it not being a tax even tho the last letter is for TAX.

To bring in the cuurnt amopunt HMG needs LVT will do it briliantly.

Clearly completely blotto, as always.

Land cannot be taken off-shore, so cannot be avoided.

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

Anyone with even half a clue can certainly own land in a place thats
not actually stupid enough to have just an LVT and no other taxes at all.

Collection costs are very small.

Only because no one will actually be stupid enough to own any land in a country
thats actually stupid enough to have just an LVT and no other taxes at all.

1/3 of revenue taken now is only 2/3 collected as 1/3 is the collection costs.

That is a bare faced lie with income tax.

Enterprise is expanded

That is a bare faced lie when no one will be able to afford to own any land.

reducing the welfare bill,

That is a bare faced lie when no one will be able to afford to own any land.

so HMG needs less revenue.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed/drunken pig ignorant fantasys/lies.

Economic growth is expanded

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed/drunken pig ignorant fantasys/lies.

so LVT can lay in the infrstucture needed to create the growth.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed/drunken pig ignorant fantasys/lies.

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

As they only pay LVT

No one will actually be that stupid.

and are paying less in overall taxes,

Zero in fact.

and land prices will eventually settle

At zero, because no one will actually be stupid enought to
own any when they are the only ones who pay any tax at all.

as the economy expands faster than land,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed/drunken pig ignorant fantasys/lies.

so house prices are lower people will be INFINITELY better off.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed/drunken pig ignorant fantasys/lies.

They will all be squatting in the houses that no one is silly enough
to own, because if they do, they will have to pay the LVT.

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

Even sillier.

You are a complete IDIOT!!!!

You are a incomplete IDIOT, no brain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:50:09 +1100 Rod Speed wrote :
And we KNOW that in Australia, which has had an LVT for more
than a century now, that landlords do in fact pass on the LVT,
regardless of what some stupid academic claims isnt possible.

No, that is rubbish.

Rod, Harry, of whatever his name is, writes TOTAL rubbish. He is a basket
case.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote
djc wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And we KNOW that in Australia, which has had an LVT for more
than a century now, that landlords do in fact pass on the LVT,
regardless of what some stupid academic claims isnt possible.

No, that is rubbish. I currently have a house up for rent in
Ballarat and it will fetch what the market says it will fetch.
Any prospective tenant could not give a toss whether I am liable for
Land Tax or not or whether my marginal rate of tax is 15%, 30% or 40%.
He will pay what the property is worth, regardless of the tax I pay.

Of course he dosn't, but you do. Unless you are very altruistic the rent
at which you are willing to let that property will take into
account your costs of ownership, which includes any tax liability.
If the market won't pay that price then you have a bad investment.

Then he sells

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

Good thing as land is not hoarded and it keeps harmful speculators away.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
djc wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And we KNOW that in Australia, which has had an LVT for more
than a century now, that landlords do in fact pass on the LVT,
regardless of what some stupid academic claims isnt possible.

No, that is rubbish. I currently have a house up for rent in
Ballarat and it will fetch what the market says it will fetch.
Any prospective tenant could not give a toss whether I am liable
for Land Tax or not or whether my marginal rate of tax is 15%,
30% or 40%. He will pay what the property is worth, regardless of
the tax I pay.

Of course he dosn't, but you do. Unless you are very altruistic
the rent at which you are willing to let that property will take into
account your costs of ownership, which includes any tax liability.
If the market won't pay that price then you have a bad investment.

Particularly with his insane scheme for just an LVT as the only tax.

Winston Churchill, Einstein, Tolstoy, Martin Wolf and Sam Brittan of the
Financial Times, etc, etc. They must all be stupid except this Speed man who
has many personalities.