Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (Guest edition)

James Overseas, over at The Guardian gives short shrift to ten fairly bog-standard KLNs as submitted by some numpty or other:

OK Mark, I'll bite:

1. Poor Widows In Mansions will be forced onto the streets

Probably not onto the street, but in principle, yes they would need to sell and move to property that attracts a lower tax - either out of prime areas or just smaller - 1 person living in an 8 bed house is highly inefficient and means that young families have to bring up children in cramped conditions. If it was ever implemented though, I'd expect there to be exceptions / rebates for the very old.

2. Farmers will go bankrupt and we'll starve

No, the land value of farmland is very low and wouldn't attract much tax.

3. Developers will snap up farmland and concrete over the countryside

No. LVT is not incompatible with having zoning laws - you can still have greenbelt restrictions. The difference is though, that when land is rezoned the value goes to the State rather than the owner - something that will reduce corruption.

4. It would push down house prices and destroy all this country's wealth and capital

Yes it will push down house prices, but that's a good thing. House prices are making the UK globally uncompetitive - you can't pay your workers less than they need to feed and house themselves.

5. The army of a million surveyors and snoopers and faceless bureaucrats doing the valuations

Yes, it will require valuations, but since it is the land being valued, rather than the property, less than for the current system of council tax. A bad tax that taxes residency - something that can be fiddled.

6. Wot? Yet more taxes on top of our existing tax burden?

No, instead of your current tax burden. Income Tax, Other Capital Gains Tax and Corporate Tax could all be reduced.

7. Value is highly subjective and impossible to establish outside the mind of the individual (no, seriously, I have seen that advanced as an argument)

Value is easy to measure. It's the market price minus the cost of construction - that's the value of the land.

8. Land owners are not taking anything away from anybody, they just want a little patch and to be left in peace. Why should they pay for that?

The State requires funding. The question is why do we take the funding from those who work, and those who risk, but we don't take any of the money your house is "earning" you.

9. I've paid for my land! Why should I pay rent on my own land?

As 8. Though it's worth noting that you've paid for the Freehold, it's the Crown that owns the land.

10. You Commies want to nationalise everything, if you take away our land then you take away everything from us.

I'm not a Commie, I'm a Liberal - which means economically (American readers please note), I tend towards the free market.

Today we have a terrible situation that is killing society. If you don't inherit a house, you can be in the top 10% of earners in the country, yet because the tax burden falls on income, you will have so much money taken off you that you will never be in a position to own your own home. You will pay for everything society needs, but you will never benefit from it.