Somebody sent me an email headed "LVT and Class Warfare" with the following nugget:
And here's a question worth asking, what if a low income neighbourhood gets together as a community and works with the police to cut down crime in their area? If land taxes then go up and a bunch of rich toffs move in, then the very community that worked hard to improve their neighbourhood could be forced to move on.
I'm inclined to agree with your economic arguments that LVT would increase overall productivity as well as improve the housing stock but you can't ignore the fact that a careless LVT zoning policy would exacerbate income band apartheid.
I've heard this one before, it is of course completely bunkum.
It is impossible for a very small, identifiable group of people to permanently reduce crime in their neighbourhood and thereby push up land values.
I suppose it is theoretically possible that everybody in "the local community" could agree not to commit crimes in the area and to carry out Neighbourhood Watch patrols, report law-breaking family members to the police etc. But I've never heard of it happening, and apart from that, it only takes a few criminal households out of thousands to turn a low crime area into a high crime one. What if they don't sign up?
Further, in the absence of LVT, let us assume that one person from this neighbourhood decides to sell up for a higher price and move away...
Firstly, he sells it to a wealthier person. Secondly, what is that wealthier person paying for? He is certainly not paying for the efforts of the person who has moved away who is no longer contributing. Thirdly, if the new resident wants to keep crime down, he has to put in the hours and abide by the rules himself, so basically what he is paying for is partly his own efforts.
Thursday, 25 February 2016
Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (385)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I call this the Batman argument. It doesn't work in reality.
BTW I hear this sort of argument among the left (one example):
"Then with a collapsed housing market, properties could be bought up cheaply and either remodeled and sold to new gentry, or just milked as a cash cow by renting to the newly property-less. It is an ill wind that blows no body good."
R, yes, it's a traditional KL< LVT would benefit the rich and hurt the poor.
Fact is, most 'poor' people would benefit overall from a shift to LVT. Why are the interests of the land-owning poor more important than those of the renting or over-mortgaged poor?
"R, yes, it's a traditional KL< LVT would benefit the rich and hurt the poor."
It's bloody obvious that this isn't the case or we would have LVT now and there'd be groups of people campaigning to get rid of it.
B, that is one of Henry Law;'s arguments that he makes over and over again.
"The land-owning poor" - what a ridiculous statement concept! If somebody wants to qualify as poor and get public assistance, they should dispose of their assets first, like those who have non-land assets are currently forced to do.
"somebody wants to qualify as poor and get public assistance, they should dispose of their assets first, like those who have non-land assets are currently forced to do."
Er why? Won't that just segregate the poor and non-poor further?
Best to just nationalise the land, and give 'poor' people jobs.
M, yes, that irks as well. You've got more than £16k cash savings? Then fuck off. You've got a £1.6 million home? No problem.
R, nope, it will reduce inequality - the best measure of inequality is net disposable income after tax and housing costs.
What does "nationalising land" mean anyway? LVT is a sophisticated way of nationalising and redistributing land RENTS. (We can argue about what sort of welfare system we want to have as a separate issue)
It depends on what you mean by they should "dispose of their assets first." If you mean the government taking them then yes. If not they just sell them onto some rich people.
"What does "nationalising land" mean anyway? LVT is a sophisticated way of nationalising and redistributing land RENTS."
Well, technically, all the land already belongs to the state, all that "landowners" actually own is an entitlement to occupy that land for no rent. That's presumably why the proof of "ownership" is called a title.
B, each country has its special myths and legal fictions to explain land ownership.
Post a Comment