From The Times:
Sir, The plan for wind farm rent rises by the Crown Estate (report, Oct 26) is an example of the monopolist landowner being able to rack up rents with impunity*.
It illustrates that every landowner, or, in the case of homeowners, the bankers taking their mortgage interest, are being given a gift through added land value by the community process of planning permission. What is being given by the landlord or bank to the community for the benefit received?
Lloyd George's 1909 People's Budget attempted to tax the increased land values that these higher wind farm rents imply. We now need a 2009 People's Budget to capture this value for the public purse while reducing other taxes. It surely is disproportionate and unfair to tax the personal creative activity of work via income tax, while allowing windfall gains to landowners and mortgage lenders, achieved solely by planning gain.
Charles Bazlinton, Alresford, Hants.
* As an aside, as Crown Estates are a branch of the state, they should of course charge full market rent, i.e. as much as they can get away with. Whether we call that "tax" or "rent" is immaterial, and making Crown Estates (or any other branch of the state) pay Land Value Tax is a self-cancelling transaction, although it would be useful for costing purposes.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Reader's Letter Of The Day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
..making Crown Estates (or any other branch of the state) pay Land Value Tax is a self-cancelling transaction..
As, presumably, is making gov't departments pay VAT.
B, agreed. As is making taxpayer funded jobs pay Employer's National Insurance. But as VAT and Employer's NI will be the first two taxes to go when I'm in charge, that won't be an issue.
MW you've got it wrong. It's not self cancelling at all.
The Crown should pay LVT and landowners should also pay LVT to the Crown then it should all be returned equally to citizens. The State should then charge everyone equally for the services it gives.
Whit?
'The State should then charge everyone equally for the services it gives.'
Well, thank you very much for the State charging. Perhaps, just maybe like, the State
should just get out of charging anyone for anything.
'For the services it gives' by dint of taking my money and giving to those which it decides appropriate?
Collectivisism rules.
'The Crown should pay LVT and landowners should also pay LVT to the Crown then it should all be returned equally to citizens.' Way to go there: charge the state and pay back said charges to the state. And distribute amongst those we decide are worthy.
Que?
FFS!
And equally, by returning it to the citizens said citizens can sit back and relax 'cos we feckin' workers will subsidise them.
I do not give up but I get fed up listening to crap like this.
It probably made sense to you AC1, somehow; I am at a loss to understand what you mean.
STB.
Try reading it a few more times.
Your lack of comprehension isn't my problem.
Christ, man, your dealing with a country where many people are so stupid that they believe that the Crown Estate is the personal property of the Queen. And you wish to reason with these dolts? Good luck.
AC1, for The Crown (as tax collector) to charge itself tax is pointless. Plus this is a polite blog.
STB, remember that AC1 is a purist.
He'd have no other taxes apart from LVT and similar (certainly no income tax, VAT, National Insurance) and the government would provide only basic functions (law and order, defence) which cost maybe 5% of GDP (and no NHS, no State education).
To the extent that LVT receipts exceed cost of core functions (and they would), they would be dished out pro rata to every citizen (as defined), in the same way as all children are entitled to "free" education or everybody is entitled to "free" NHS.
It's called Georgism or Geo-Libertarianism and has a lot or merit, if you ask me.
I'll go study again.
Homework, always the homework.
Very diplomatic, Mr.W.
STB.
..making Crown Estates (or any other branch of the state) pay Land Value Tax is a self-cancelling transaction..
Only if averaged over government as a whole. Not necessarily for an individual department. Gov't departments should pay LVT to HMRC, so that they are under the same pressure as everyone else to optimise their land usage. It would also prepare the necessary accounting for any future privatisation or out-sourcing of that operation.
Ed, yes and no. Most govt bodies which own premises already include notional rents as income and as expenses, it would make sense (for comparion purposes) to split up the expense into notional buildings rent and LVT, whether it's paid in cash or not.
Post a Comment