From DEFRA's press release accompanying that report saying that nature is of value to us (well duh):
Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said:
"The natural world is vital to our existence, providing us with essentials such as food, water and clean air, but also other cultural and health benefits not always fully appreciated because we get them for free. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment is a vital step forward in our ability to understand the true value of nature and how to sustain the benefits it gives us."
Or in plain English:
"The natural world is vital to our existence, providing a lucky few with essentials such as food, water and clean air, but also other cultural and health benefits, and we NIMBYs will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we continue to get them for free. But if any other f-er wants a bit of the action, well they can pay us oodles of money first. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment is a clue bat as to how much wealth is being transferred to Home-Owner-Ists thanks to them having monopolised the true value of nature and how we Home-Owner-Ists sustain the system whereby only we benefit."
Blow that whistle
1 hour ago
9 comments:
And free they should be!
R, free to whom? To a lucky few or to all?
Free to me if I own a house in the New Forest or Brecon Beacons or practically anywhere that planning permission means my access to nature is never diluted by new homes.
If my house is worth £1m with a huge mortgage because of access to this and other pleasant public amenities, then I am paying the bank for access rights. If LVT tax was introduced at £10,000 before I bought, the price might fall to £500,000 because now it costs something to access the public amenities I like, but then my mortgage with the bank will be a lot smaller. I am therefore paying a public fee (tax) for enjoying a public amenity instead of a private fee (bank interest).
OTOH, exactly.
Land taxes are an irreducible minimum of taxes, they cannot be evaded, avoided or legislated away and they will always be collected. The only question is, is it better to collect them publicly and dish out the proceeds or to continue to allow them to be collected privately (and pretend they are not 'taxes' by calling them 'rents' or 'mortgage interest' or 'non-cash income').
Very good points all.
People in general(Present company excluded) have no idea what is meant by "value", who creates it and who by rights should get to keep it, in a way that will sustain the economy.
Politicians are simply doing what "we" ask them to... in general.
Now then, instead of complaining about this for ever and getting nowhere,(noble cause as that is), who wants to join me in figuring out how we can change it?
The Robin Smith Institute: The RSI Roadmap
I was interested to note that the "value" was presented as £300 per capita. As if everyone currently has an equal share!
"The health benefits of living with a view of a green space are worth up to £300 per person per year."
The cynic would see this as the precursor to a viewing, or window tax.
RS, sign me up.
DNAse, exactly! And the Homeys want to keep it all to themselves.
VFTS, nope, it's the optimists who see this as a precusor to LVT. The people with a view benefit at the expense of those people who are prevented from having a house built nearby, so why should the former group compensate the latter?
The cynics, on the other hand, see this as just so much NIMBY propaganda to justify an end to any new construction of anything whatsoever.
"The health benefits of living with a view of a green space are worth up to £300 per person per year."
But the costs in terms of the extra interest you have to pay because of the larger mortgage you have to take out because of the higher cost of the house "with a view of a green space" probably cancel that out.
Post a Comment