Roger Evans, a Tory councillor:
Jenny Jones proposed a land value tax, to shift taxation from income to wealth, and to encourage the use of derelict land.(1) I pointed out that this would lead to pressure for denser, more profitable housing and commercial projects,(2) with less amenity space (3) - not a very green proposal. It would also in effect be a tax on London, as land values are so much higher in the capital,(4) shifting more money out of the city to the rest of the UK.(5) Professor Travers also noted that the tax would hit people living in fashionable areas whose properties had hugely increased in value.(6) Those who were earning low wages would be forced to sell up and move.(7)
1) Yippee, very sensible, what's not to like?
2) Is the man really that stupid? That's why we have planning laws; the tax is, by definition, based on optimum permitted use, and given a fairly fixed population, even if there is denser development in some areas then there will be less development somewhere else, such as on The Hallowed Green Belt.
3) Most amenity space is owned by the local council, why would the council pressure itself to build on such land? For a start, it has in itself no rental value (because access is free) and secondly, parks add enormously to the rental value of surrounding houses, so overall rental values are higher if ten or twenty per cent is set aside for public parks etc.
4) ??? You could say that income tax is a tax on London because wages are highest there. Simple fact is, rental values are highest in London, so saying that a tax on land values would raise most money from where land values are highest is pretty idiotic, it's simply not an argument.
5) London only appears to be so wealthy because it sucks up money from the rest of the economy; Ms J Jones clearly proposed that other taxes be cut which would benefit London in equal and opposite measure; and as it happens, the proposal was for London infrastructure to be funded by taxes on London land values; or for taxes on London land values to be spent on London infrastructure, so this argument is again complete bollocks.
6) Good to see Poor Widows making their appearance, isn't it?
7) And? The Tories hate low earners don't they? They're quite happy to take away their benefits and for high rents and house prices to filter them out of nice areas, why is LVT any different, it merely speeds up the process a bit, that's all. It's just that in true Homey self-contradictory fashion, they hate low earners who don't own land but are rather in awe of low earners who own valuable land.
Christmas Day: readings for Year C
10 hours ago
14 comments:
He is looking for infinite evidence.
There is a remedy so radical that it will not be considered if we believe less drastic measures might work.
Yet it is so simple that its effectiveness will be discounted until more elaborate measures are evaluated.
"He is looking for infinite evidence."
I prefer to think he is regurgitating ideas carefully placed in the public consciousness over decades. Like Dubya, he is thinking with the gut.
RS, he is not looking for infinite evidence at all, he is fabricating evidence to support his prejudice that LVT is an evil tax.
B, he is not a victim of propaganda, he is creating propaganda.
The good thing about LVT for Crossrail is that it sidesteps the paying-for-the-land twice issue that would afflict members of the "Priced Out Generation" if they ever managed to afford a house: they would,in normal circumstances pay through the nose for the land (to a private sector seller) then have to pay for the land all over again as a public sector tax.A Crossrail LVT would kick in when the project started and only tax land price increases if and when they occurred...in line with the original LVT tax proposals of Mill (Pere and fils).
Poor Widows could still be affected but if you reintegrated property gains into the Income Tax as a revamped Schedule A (LVT) ,the PW's would ,(or could be made to!),fall below the threshold for the (combined) Tax.
DBC, you've lost me a bit there. The Homeys despise the Sentinel Tax as much as they despise LVT or Council Tax or Domestic Rates, that's all a bit of a dead end.
London sucks money out of the rest of the economy?
Sorry but do you think that the city of London doesn't do any business with the rest of the world.
A lot of companies in FTSE 100 do most of the business out of the UK.
LF, the City sucks a lot of money out of the rest of the world using the same tricks, and London is a prime tourist destination and earns an honest crust by being nice to tourists.
What does the FTSE 100 have to do with it? They have their head offices in London, that's all. So the money earned elsewhere in the UK gets shuffled to London to pay the high rents and high salaries.
There's a discussion ongoing on the Democracy 2015 facebook group about LVT.
It'd be great if you could contribute to add some knowledge to the debate:-
https://www.facebook.com/groups/democracy2015/482887028408414/?comment_id=483176571712793¬if_t=group_comment_reply#!/groups/democracy2015/483149365048847/?notif_t=group_comment_reply
"B, he is not a victim of propaganda, he is creating propaganda."
Nah, he's not important or influential enough to be creating propaganda; he's just repeating it.
Sc, I can't FB from work. Tell me if anybody comes up with a really good Killer Argument Against LVT.
B, same difference, he's a councillor so to pretend that he is unaware of the existence of planning restrictions means he is totally corrupt.
'this would lead to pressure for denser, more profitable housing'
Sort of like the 'beds in sheds' black market that plagues London. LVT would shrink this black market as land would be cheaper and more plentiful, and you'd get less people dying in fires caused by black market buildings.
LF, London sucks an enormous amount of money from the rest of the country in housing benefit. And with subsidies to banks. All paid for by taxpayers in other parts of the country who see no benefit, and Londoners who get a negative benefit from elevated rents and prices from HB
M, planning regulations and building control is a slightly separate discussion, with or without LVT, there will be people who can obtain a marginal advantage from beds in sheds or subletting a house to two dozen East Europeans etc. There would be fewer beds in sheds because there would be more nice flats to rent, but the issue will never be eliminated.
M, add taxpayer subsidies for Crossrail, Olympics, HS1 to the list; as well as all the tax money given to the highly overpaid civil servants in London.
"he's a councillor ........ he is totally corrupt."
Sadly, all too common down here.
Post a Comment