Friday, 29 April 2016

Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (392)

First comment in an LVT article on/in/at Salon, a couple of years ago:

This proposal would pass ALL of the land in the country to the wealthy at a far faster rate than it is now.

I make much less than 100K per year but I do own a home purchased many years ago. Making my taxes high enough to replace all other taxes would mean I would have to sell it to someone rich enough to pay those huge taxes. Eventually only the very wealthy would own property and we would all be renting from the over-class.

I've seen this one several times and can only assume that people who say it are hard core Home-Owner-Ist propagandists.

Simple question: "Do you earn enough to be able to afford to rent your own home?" For tenants the answer is obviously "yes", for owner-occupiers with a mortgage it is obviously "yes" and for people who have paid off the mortgage but not yet retired, the answer is almost certainly "yes" as well.

And surely just about everybody can answer "yes" to this question: "If payroll taxes were halved, so your net pay went up by a quarter and there were no sales taxes on the stuff you buy, would you be able to afford to rent your own home, assuming you get a one-third discount on the rent?"

Maybe these poor propagandists are in the one or two per cent of working people who can honestly answer "No" to that question, but methinks they are just full of shit.


Ben Jamin' said...

A LVT simply means we are all equal share landlords of the value derived from natural resources.

Quite how some people think an LVT is elitist, or would favour the wealthy, who own a higher proportion of Land(compared to income/capital) than the rest is therefore puzzling.

If the wealthy increased their share of land titles after an LVT, then they'd simply be adding to an already increased tax liability (by my calculations, it would at least double for the top 1% after a fullon LVT).

In other words, we'd all be even better off.

What will happen in reality is, the very opposite of the KLN. The top 1% in order to avoid the added taxes,will be disposing of property assets which will be a transfer of economic welfare(wealth), back to the other 99%, who will enjoy living in bigger houses/better locations and reduced tax liabilities.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Bj exactly, but are the people making the claim terminally stupid or homey propagandists?

Striebs said...

Folks , what is "KLN" please ?

Bayard said...

Mark, probably neither, but just too lazy to think it through.

Mark Wadsworth said...

S, KLN is short for "killer argument against land value tax, not".

B, it's more than laziness.

Bayard said...

"and for people who have paid off the mortgage but not yet retired, the answer is almost certainly "yes" as well."

They may be able to afford it, but that doesn't mean to say they would want to pay it, if their total tax paid would go up. So it's a vague sense of having to pay more tax, added to a gut feeling against land tax added to a disinclination to think it through.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B: "if their total tax paid would go up"

That all depends on which taxes you replace. Assuming it's a £ for £ shift to LVT, 90% of working age households would be paying the same or less tax (and roll up option for pensioners).