I don't know if we've done this one before, but:
Carol Wilcox commented on a Facebook post in the Land Value Taxation Campaign group -
"it's not affordable for those with principal homes in locations where land values have soared. My friend's modest home in Kilburn, London, was valued a couple of years ago at £1.1m."
This strikes me as a variation of the Poor Widow Bogey, but I think it is true to say tha, if we had had LVT in place, the 1000% price increase wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Sunday, 25 September 2022
Killer Arguments against LVT, Not (494)
My latest blogpost: Killer Arguments against LVT, Not (494)Tweet this! Posted by Bayard at 20:17
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
B, the comment misses the point. It's the rental value that matters, not the selling price.
Rents have gone up over past twenty years by a factor of two (guess), not by a factor of five (guess) like house prices.
House prices reflect interest rate falls, rents don't.
B, actually, I think I know the person concerned. A few years ago, he raised this point. Since then, I have brought him fully on board, he helped me with some tricky calculations on selling prices v rents across the UK. The results were unsurprising but reassuring.
Also, surely, there would be a bit of progression as LVT rates grew as other tax rates declined. (Not under a Lola administration of course. I'd just do it all overnight and let the whole lot sort itself out. When I'm dick tater.)
Post a Comment