From here
Ian B: "one of the problems with an LVT is valuation. The problem is, the LVT itself affects the value. The first round of valuations can be based on market prices; once the LVT is in place there is no market price and assessors must try to guess what the land would have been worth if there were no LVT, which will over time simply deviate from whatever it would have been. It's impossible to guess at a price in the marketplace, since prices are only set at the instant of an individual trade."
To which Paul Lockett replied:"That might be true if LVT were set at 100% of the rental value, but for anything less than that, there will be a residual selling price which can be assessed. In effect, this is the situation we have anyway, because prices are already suppressed by Council Tax and Business Rates."
Which I echoed in my response: "Of course taxes on property affect values (e.g. council tax, business rates, stamp duty land tax, TV licence fee, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, s106 agreements etc) as do subsidies for land values (Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, CAP subsidies) which is why they ought to all be chucked in the bin and replaced with a fiscally neutral LVT, in the interests of simplification, if nothing else."
Thinking on, is LVT much different from an interest-only, non-repayable loan from the goverment to 'buy' the location element of a property (you'd still borrow money from a normal bank or building society to pay for the bricks and mortar), which is cancelled in full when you sell the property again? Seeing as the government, i.e. HM Land Registry, are the only people who can guarantee title to any particular location, would it be a crime to say that you can only borrow money from the self-same government to buy land?
Only instead of having a fixed amount of loan with a variable interest rate, the rate is fixed buy law, and the amount of the loan is variable (it will go up or down it property values go up or down, in the long run it will go up with rising incomes). Interest rates and credit terms can change, favourably or adversely, but this does not deter people from buying property, does it?
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Killer arguments against LVT, not. (1)
My latest blogpost: Killer arguments against LVT, not. (1)Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 10:54
Labels: KLN, Land Value Tax, Logic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The basis of LVT is that land is a common good. England's property ownership system implicitly recognises this since a freehold is actually a perpetual, free lease from the Crown. None of us truly own our land, we have simply bought a lease with no duration. If LVT were implemented it would be vital to make it clear that land was not owned by the government, but the Crown or the State, that is all of us. And that we could each hold freeholds on the basis of a perpetual lease.
LVT could then be considered to be the lease payment.
As regards setting the rate and assessing the valuations this is a totally spurious argument. All valuations are opinion and all are therefore wrong. The test of marketing will be the only certain valuation.
Additionally if LVT achieves a secondary benefit of depressing land prices that would be a very good this.
Ian B argument is spurious.
L, indeed, that's one of Paul Luckett's arguments - land already IS owned by 'The Crown' (that most nebulous of concepts).
Lola,
and the LVT should be set to create the most revenue in order to pay the land owners a dividend.
The issue of valuations is easy!
Let the owner set the value they'd accept a delayed buyout offer for.
Post a Comment