Sunday, 25 September 2022

Killer Arguments against LVT, Not (494)

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.


Mark Wadsworth said...

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.

Mark Wadsworth said...

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.

Lola said...

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.)