Doctor Drivel wrote:
"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%.

Thats because they have so many of the absolute dregs.

The USA is not much differnt.

Clearly completely blotto, as always.

Any economist looking at that can only conclude the existing system is not working properly. It needs fixing and
Genomics is the answer.

Yeah, yeah, kill all the kulaks, eh comrade ?

Rod Speed foolishly wrote:
Doctor Drivel
Rod Speed foolishly wrote
Doctor Drivel

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,

It has all been calculated.

To bring in the current amount HMG needs LVT will do it briliantly.

Clearly ....

Correct.

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

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

Do you mean you can take land off-shore. Take it away. We could take the
UK to the Med then.

Collection costs are very small.

Only because ....

Collection costs are very small.

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

That is a bare

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

Enterprise is expanded

That is a bare faced lie

Enterprise is expanded, look at Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.

reducing the welfare bill,

That is a bare faced

When Enterprise is expanded less use the welfare system.

so HMG needs less revenue.

Just another ....

so HMG needs less revenue.

Economic growth is expanded

Just another ....

Economic growth is expanded. Look at Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

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

Just another ...

Hong Kong paid for a metro from taxes gained from land values.

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.

They pay no other taxes. No Income Tax, VAT, ecouraging progress. Income
taxes are BAD taxes.

and are paying less in overall taxes,

Zero in fact.

Zero Income tax.

and land prices will eventually settle

At zero,

They actually rose in Denmark as the economy was sparked into life.

as the economy expands faster than land,

Just another ....

.....the economy expands faster than land,

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

Just another ....

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

You are a complete IDIOT!!!!

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
jgharston wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled

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.

Fraid not.

Look at Harrisburg USA and countless other places that have it.

NOT ONE of those is actually stupid enough to have just an LVT and no other taxes.

And they ALL have land spectulation and hoarding and derelict buildings too.

Australia's version is a token version at needs expanding.

Clearly completely blotto, as usual.

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.

Nope, not one.

Have fun listing even a single example of any
place in Australia that has no derelict buildings.

In spades with Harrisburg.

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!!!!

Fat lot of good that is to them, fool.

Did they increase it? NO!!! Who did? Us with our taxes.

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

They can tap into that land wealth at any time.

Why should they have to ?

LVT reclaims community created wealth for community purposes.

Nope. Because JUST an LVT and no other taxes at all would mean
that no one would be stupid enough to own any land at all, so one
would actually be stupid enough to be paying any LVT at all.

Doctor Drivel drivelled, as always
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled, as always
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled, as always

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,

It has all been calculated.

Nope, pig ignorantly lied about, actually.

none of the rest of your juvenile **** worth bothering with

Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed 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.

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.

NONE of those was actually stupid enough to advocate JUST
an LVT and no other taxes at all, you silly little pathological liar.

And no one with even half a clue takes any notice of what some novelist wants to see tax wise anyway.

Doctor Drivel drivelled again
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled again
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

Yeah, no one is actually stupid enough to own any when the LVT is the
only tax in the entire country and so has to be immense on any land owned.

and it keeps harmful speculators away.

Yeah, no one is actually stupid enough to own any when the LVT is the
only tax in the entire country and so has to be immense on any land owned.

Plenty of spectulation in everything else tho, because its all completely untaxed.

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

That is a pig ignorant lie. ALL Australian council rates are
determined by the value of the LAND, so its an LVT, fool.

Equiv of no Council Tax.

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

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

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, Rod/Harry/Bertie/Jimmy/Butch or whatever you are today.

It clearly does.

Fraid not.

Look at Harrisburg USA and countless other places that have it.

NOT ONE of those is actually stupid enough to have just an LVT and no
other taxes.

Sirry Irriot, They would do but they have to pay state and federal taxes as
well and cannot get around that. But the success is brilliant.

snip drivel

"Rod Speed" wrote silly thing 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.

Nope,

It has all been calculated.

Nope,

It has

snip drivel

"Rod Speed" wrote silly things in message
...

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.

NONE of those was actually stupid enough to advocate JUST
an LVT

They did!

snip drivel

"Rod Speed" wrote silly things in message

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

Good thing as land is not hoarded

Yeah, no one is actually stupid enough to own any when the LVT is the
only tax in the entire country

They did in a German colony in China

snip drivel

"Rod Speed" wrote silly things in message
...

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

That is a pig ignorant lie.

Sirry Irriot, you will have to look further.

snip drivel

"Rod Speed" wrote silly things in message
...
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%.

Thats because they have so many of the absolute dregs.

Sirry Irriot, sounds similar to Auss then