tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post4887155010606932349..comments2024-03-05T10:52:24.691+00:00Comments on Mark Wadsworth: Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (414)Mark Wadsworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-27400573396099480282017-06-01T07:13:58.425+01:002017-06-01T07:13:58.425+01:00B, that whole circular calculation is rather madde...B, that whole circular calculation is rather maddening, we do not know exactly where we would end up. But if rents go up, then that means we can increase LVT and reduce taxes on earnings even more. There must be an upper limit.<br /><br />N, we recommend proper LVT calculated on basis of "site premium" i.e. what the annual rent is minus the annual cost of maintaining bricks and mortar/depreciation.<br /><br />Some people think this is a strange concept, so to simplify it a bit we have explained that a full on LVT "would be about 3% of CURRENT selling prices" to give people an idea of the approx numbers.<br /><br />The fact that selling prices might go down in future is irrelevant, the tax will still be about 3% of the selling price BEFORE LVT came in. <br /><br />Clearly if you want to raise significant amounts, then you shouldn't express the tax as a % of selling prices.<br /><br />See <a href="http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/p/valuations-and-potential-lvt-receipts.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-3233103109636063602017-06-01T04:45:06.761+01:002017-06-01T04:45:06.761+01:00On point 4 (reducing yield after "bedding in&...On point 4 (reducing yield after "bedding in" due to behavioural change), surely there is a point there dependent on exactly how the tax is administered?<br /><br />Under the YPP policy of 4% of value per annum, is it not likely that with land ownership now carrying a previously absent liability, land prices will drop. In that case, assuming that the 4% figure remains constant, the absolute yield will drop, won't it (since if the cumulative market value of the nation's land drops, 4% of that value drops too)?<br /><br /><i>If</i> there was a policy to allow land forfeiture to the state in lieu of tax payment (which seems to me might be necessary to convince the public of the "fairness" of LVT, avoiding the spectre of unwanted albatrosses), then it would also be possible for the total privately owned land base to diminish.<br /><br />Of course, if you didn't set the tax as an absolute percentage of market value, then it would be possible to maintain the tax base: with an outside reference figure you could simply collect the total sum required on a proportional basis, with landowners being liable for the same percentage of the total tax requirement as the fraction their land value composed of the cumulative national land value. And if land gets moved between state and private ownership, or if land values fluctuate, then individual fractions of the total bill change to meet those changing circumstances.<br /><br />That's right, isn't it?<br /><br />Linking a Citizen's Income to such a tax on proportions of the national land holdings seems to me to also make a intuitively comprehensible argument: "Land is a shared asset of the nation, you can have exclusive use (ownership) of it, but depending on how much you use, we ask that you fairly compensate (LVT) the rest of society (CI) based on that usage."<br /><br />Of course, there is (if I understand correctly) a ready figure isn't there? Isn't it the intention of YPP to raise half of tax through an LVT and half through a flat 20% income tax for individuals/companies (I thought I saw/heard that somewhere, but can't find it now. Maybe I made it up...)? So with that income tax figure determined by the incomes of the population in any particular year, one could set an equivalent amount to be raised by LVT and apportion that to individual land tracts dependent on the fraction of total land value they represented.<br /><br />That would be the way to ensure an absolute steady level of taxation, wouldn't it? But would involve an adjustable percentage of land value being due as LVT rather than a fixed 4%, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-70930990402156001392017-05-31T19:47:02.802+01:002017-05-31T19:47:02.802+01:00Thanks Mark, Good find.
Have put the article on m...Thanks Mark, Good find.<br /><br />Have put the article on my to do list.MikeWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15455583313857077618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-65882354553410618892017-05-29T18:23:32.888+01:002017-05-29T18:23:32.888+01:00"As it happens, the Dukes who own central Lon..."As it happens, the Dukes who own central London probably wouldn't change their behaviour, they'd accept a cut in net income from £10 billion a year to a mere £1 billion a year"<br /><br />I thought we'd been through this lots of times: all that LVT would do is change the tax base. The tenants would have more take home pay by the amount of VAT/income tax they are no longer paying/companies would be making greater profits by the amount of VAT/corp tax they are not paying and this would mean they could pay higher rents which would more of less cancel out the LVT paid by the landlord. The people who would be losing out are not so much the landlords but the moneylenders.<br /><br />"2)Is he having a laugh?"<br /><br />"when I've said it three times, it's true" (Hunting of the Snark). You can't repeat a lie too often if you want people to believe it.Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.com