Friday, Feb 27, 2009
Build for England
Rightmove: Price of Building land
Given the price of building land abroad (see link), shouldn't we release land that that doesn't currently have permission with a max price of £30k per 1/4 acre plot.
Each town/village throughout the country should make and always have available 5-10 building plots for owner occupiers to build there own houses.
This would have the benefit of bank bailout money being pumped directly back into the economy (instead of being instantly locked up in another depreciating asset) and generate many micro climates of economic activity.
In the long run it would also have the effect of making existing dwellings more affordable.
Posted by str 2007 @ 09:10 AM (884 views) Add Comment
46 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. River Man said...
I agree in theory, but it depends. In the south-east that might have the effect of meanign all those 10 peopel with newly built homes drove to London or another successful town.
I agree we have to build more homes, and allow more self-build, but we have to think carefully where they are (near jobs, near transport) so we don't add to the congestion, pollution and excessive car use in this already overdeveloped and dispersed country where everyone lives miles from work.
2. str 2007 said...
And for anyone interested here are some in Germany and some in < a href="http://www.rightmove.co.uk/overseas-property/find/Italy.html?locationIdentifier=WORLD_REGION%5E172&sortByPriceDescending=false&displayPropertyType=land">Italy the first few on the Italian listing are just land without permission, but you don't have to go far to find sensible prices for plots with permission.
3. str 2007 said...
Sorry messed up th Italian link try again
Italy
4. bob1 said...
A noble idea but a bit impracticable. I think that it would be a better idea to reduce the population of the country. This could be achieved quite easily
1. Only grant visas to 200,000 key foreign workers.
2. Kick out any foreigner who commits a crime or who is long term unemployed
3. Change welfare legislation so that permanently unemployed people are not paid to have loads of kids
4. Ban foreign students
This would probably free up about 2 million homes and house prices would crumble. It's so un PC isn't it ... boo hoo
5. denzil said...
I'm all for villages making these plots available for owner-occupiers so long as there is some kind of regulation (i hate to use that term) to ensure that these plots of lands do not go to developers who are solely focussed on jamming as many piss poor constructed rabbit hutches as is physically possible.
Sadly the Govt fully realise that they can grab a hell of lot more in tax from more homes in a plot than less. I do appreciate 1/4 is not huge but before you know it there will be two to three adjoining plots being sold as a one lot.
6. str 2007 said...
denzil
Yes of course there would need to be some rules around this and I agree with those you point out. 1/4 acre plot is a nice comfortable size with room for a vegetable patch. If only 1 was available to each family say every 7 years or so it would stop several being lumped together to create one big one.
I think with people being responsible for their own home you'd get alot better development than handing it over to a big developer to cram in as many as possible at the lowest possible price.
bob1
I don't see why it's impractical (apart from the fact you might get a 'poor person' living next to your paddock) :-)
7. shipbuilder said...
bob1 - is there any substance to your idea beyond being 'proudly un-pc'? Who do you define as a foreigner? If every country applied this, would we not have more UK citizens coming back than 'foreigners' leaving? Where do you get the figure of 2 million homes from? Prices are crumbling already, aren't they? Do kids require their own houses?
8. mark wadsworth said...
@ Denzil, you are engaging in the usual "bash the property developers" dead-end.
Don't forget there is a DEMAND for houses, and they are trying to meet it as best they can. They build as much as they can that people can afford. The reason why they build rabbit hutches is because building land is so expensive (at the peak in 2007, an average English plot was about £100,000!!!), so for a given household budget, they have to skimp on the building. In days of yore (i.e. between the wars) when much more land was granted planning permission, plots were bigger and cheaper and hence houses were bigger and nicer.
If agricultural land is £5,000 per acre, or £500 for an average sized plot or even £1,250 for a giant sized plot, and it costs £75,000 to build a nice house, is there any practical reason why new homes built at the edge of towns and cities should sell for much more than £100,000 (sure, the builder needs a profit margin, roads have to be built, drainage, electricity supplies etc)? The mortgage on that would be about £5,000. There is absolutely no need to worry that landlords snap them all up, because the rent that they can charge would not be more than £5,000 either - if people don't want to rent and would rather buy for the same cost, then councils just keep granting planning permission until everybody who can afford to pay £5,000-plus per annum owns his or her own house.
That's half the battle, the other half is land value tax to keep prices low and stable.
9. bob1 said...
shipbuilder
I would like to add people with beards to my list. My comments were also designed to shake out a few commies, so you're now on the list as well.
I wasn't actually being serious. The original idea is so unworkable and 'Citizen Smith' that I decided to parody Alf Garrnet. I was secretly hoping to shake out a few BNP nutters into the bargain.
10. cyril said...
@bob1 Nice try.
If house prices didn't go up so fast, there would be no demand for rabbit hutches. People only buy them because they're desperate and think the value will go up.
11. str 2007 said...
bob1
You still haven't told us why sensibly priced building plots are so 'unworkable'.
12. Bob1 said...
str 2007
It’s not that "sensibly priced plots are unworkable': its' that the scheme is so impracticable and undefined.
1. Councils already grant planning permission on way more than 5-10 plots per year. I presume you aren't suggesting reducing the land that is made available so you will have to be more specific
2. What if a town is beautiful and historic? What if a town attracts tourism? Will you ruin these towns or give them an exception. If you give them an exception then other towns will tie you up in legal battles for a decade.
3. Some towns are huge and some are tiny. Your spread of 5-10 plots does not reflect this diversity
4. Small houses on small plots are essential for people on low incomes. This may offend your utopian sensibilities but it is a fact nevertheless. Interestingly enough, there is a green belt policy that forbids the demolition of small houses because not everyone can afford a big one.
5. Your 5-10 plot idea is hopelessly inadequate to address the number of houses requited in this country.
6. Plots cost more here than in Europe because we have more people per square foot
7. Your scheme would cause market distortions that would ultimately equate to the evaporation of many householders equity and savings. Imagine the person next door to one of your new houses. He/she might have worked hard and paid off the mortgage for 25 years. The house was going to be downsized and the capital used for retirement income. Now the house is devalued and the money is gone. Charming.
8. Your scheme would help middle class people and not poor people. Imagine the shenanigans and corruption that would go on as 2 million relatively well off people scrambled for these dream plots at such a massive discount to market.
This list is far from exhaustive. Please do not think that I am against the ultimate aim of your scheme. I am not but it could you imagine the derision NuLabour would face if they proposed a tinkering, unworkable scheme with such few detail?
13. bob1 said...
str 2007
It’s not that "sensibly priced plots are unworkable': its' that the scheme is so impracticable and undefined.
1. Councils already grant planning permission on way more than 5-10 plots per year. I presume you aren't suggesting reducing the land that is made available so you will have to be more specific
2. What if a town is beautiful and historic? What if a town attracts tourism? Will you ruin these towns or give them an exception. If you give them an exception then other towns will tie you up in legal battles for a decade.
3. Some towns are huge and some are tiny. Your spread of 5-10 plots does not reflect this diversity
4. Small houses on small plots are essential for people on low incomes. This may offend your utopian sensibilities but it is a fact nevertheless. Interestingly enough, there is a green belt policy that forbids the demolition of small houses because not everyone can afford a big one.
5. Your 5-10 plot idea is hopelessly inadequate to address the number of houses requited in this country.
6. Plots cost more here than in Europe because we have more people per square foot
7. Your scheme would cause market distortions that would ultimately equate to the evaporation of many householders equity and savings. Imagine the person next door to one of your new houses. He/she might have worked hard and paid off the mortgage for 25 years. The house was going to be downsized and the capital used for retirement income. Now the house is devalued and the money is gone. Charming.
8. Your scheme would help middle class people and not poor people. Imagine the shenanigans and corruption that would go on as 2 million relatively well off people scrambled for these dream plots at such a massive discount to market.
This list is far from exhaustive. Please do not think that I am against the ultimate aim of your scheme. I am not but it could you imagine the derision NuLabour would face if they proposed a tinkering, unworkable scheme with such few detail?
14. bob1 said...
cyril
"@bob1 Nice try"
would you care to elaborate?
15. bob1 said...
cyril
"If house prices didn't go up so fast, there would be no demand for rabbit hutches. People only buy them because they're desperate and think the value will go up".
I'm sure your Mother thinks you make sense but am afraid she's biased. People buy rabbit hutches because they can't afford a bigger house. Run Forest, run
16. mark wadsworth said...
@ Bob1, your points 7 and 8 completely contradict each other, even glossing over the fact that both assumptions are inherently flawed.
Your point 1 is the age-old problem of NIMBYism, which is where our old friend Land Value Tax comes to the rescue. If people want to protect the value of their own properties via artificial scarcity value, then as a quid pro quo, they pay more in LVT - you get what you pay for.
17. str 2007 said...
bob1
To deal with your first few points my opinion is that there should always be 5-10 buildings plots available (not per year).
With regard to historic towns/villages then the architecture of the new properties should reflect that. These could easily be graded from 1-5. IE 1 being absolutely must be in keeping to 5 that would have a more diverse allowance to the architecture.
Plot size - 1/4 acre size is ideal family plot, but sure I accept smaller ones may well suit some. These can be priced and planned accordingly. I see no problem with a run of terraced cottages for example being part of a plan providing garaging and off road parking for 3 cars per household is built into the scheme.
Yes the person who has been paying off a mortgage for 25 years may well see some correction to the price of their property, ut only back in line with what they paid for it 'index linked'. The only reason it is at the level it is now is because of unsustainable lax lending.
Further prices are falling anyway and it's costing us a fortune with no actual gain.
My idea at least generates work and costs the tax payer alot less.
The area of land per head of population is a bit of a red herring, we've only built on about 8% of our land, lets say my plans increased that to 10%. That still leaves 90%.
Further on the downsizing for retirement comment of yours - surely it would be better for our economy if people were helped to invest directly in our manufacturers as part of their pension pot than 'all their eggs in the property basket' as has been the case recently.
18. bob1 said...
mark wadsworth:
Points 7 and 8 do not contradict each other. There would be market distortions AND middleclass people would benefit from these 1/4 acre plots. There is more than one middleclass person in the country you know! A quarter of an acre is suitable for a 4 bed detached with a 100-foot garden. Rab c Nesbitt is not going to live in it now is he? I think your self-serving desire to help yourself to a 1/4 acre plot might be clouding your judgment! It’s always the same with you middle class revolutionaries
My point 1: "Councils already grant planning permission on way more than 5-10 plots per year. I presume you aren't suggesting reducing the land that is made available so you will have to be more specific"
This is what you said about my point 1:
"Your point 1 is the age-old problem of NIMBYism, which is where our old friend Land Value Tax comes to the rescue"
I’ll have whatever you're on.
19. bob1 said...
str 2007
Yes I can agree with more of it now that there is more meat on the bones. I actually agree with legislating to build more homes but it will be very difficult to do more good than harm.
"Further on the downsizing for retirement comment of yours - surely it would be better for our economy if people were helped to invest directly in our manufacturers as part of their pension pot than 'all their eggs in the property basket' as has been the case recently".
You have to be very careful here Mark. This is how utopian schemes turn into fascist states. Peoples investments should not be directed anywhere. They should do as they please.
20. str 2007 said...
bob1
The 1/4 acre for £30k was a price that is realistic if you want people to get on and build houses. This price would also make it affordable for the less well off to build themselves and not leave it to the preserve of those who can pay £250-£500k before they've laid a brick.
I have no problem with 1/8 acre plots buit these should cost £15k. The size/prce was an example of price level rather than determinate size.
With regard to price distortions - they are currently distorted. This scheme would regain a level of reality.
Reference the quantity per annum I am suggesting there should always be plots available say 5-10 on average in each town/village. IE replenished when sold.
Re: Nymbyism - sitting in a house which was once a field and someone elses view is just plain hypocritical.
21. str 2007 said...
bob1
''Peoples investments should not be directed anywhere. They should do as they please.''
Without getting off the subject - this policy would lead to no-one investing in anything and having no pension pot atall wouldn't it ?
22. mark wadsworth said...
Bob1, your point 7 is based on flawed logic:
"Your scheme would cause market distortions that would ultimately equate to the evaporation of many householders equity and savings"
a) The only reason why residential land and hence houses are so expensive is BECAUSE OF market distortions - in this instance, overly strict planning at the behest of NIMBYs. I fail to see how removing a market distortion, which is what STR suggested, is in itself a market distortion. If there is demand for quarter acre plots, why is satisfying that demand a 'market distortion'?
b) The 'equity' of which you speak is pure bubble. If STR and I had our way, then the price you pay for a house would be little more than the true bricks and mortar value. What you appear to want is to continue to prop up the bubble Ponzi scheme whereby fool's gold is passed down from one generation to the next at the cost of a huge great debt/mortgage burden on the next generation.
You might as well pander to the car-owning lobby by making it illegal to ever import or build a new car, thus enhancing the scarcity value of old cars (see also East Germany/Trabant - they did not depreciate in value over a lifetime because so few new ones were built)
Your point 8 is based on flawed logic as well:
"Your scheme would help middle class people and not poor people. Imagine the shenanigans and corruption that would go on as 2 million relatively well off people scrambled for these dream plots at such a massive discount to market."
It would not be a discount to the market. If existing home prices fell in line, then that would be the new market value, full stop. If there is a scramble, then that would push prices up slightly. And if house prices overall fell, even if we stuck with STR's plan to have very large plots (the average is less then one-tenth of an acre) and "middle class" people bought them (and why would anyone have anything against middle class people per se?) then they will sell their existing houses for even less than they pay for the new houses (obviously) so people on lower incomes would be easily able to afford the existing houses that "middle clas" people sell. Problem solved.
And the overall tenor of 7 is "The poor middle class homeowner will be deprived of windfall gains" and in 8 you say "the greedy middle classes will make windfall gains". As it happens, neither assumption is correct, it would all even out.
As to Land Value Tax, I'm with Adam Smith and Milton Friedman on that one, and I ain't budging.
23. bob1 said...
mark wadsworth: In the real world you gotta pay for what you want. You have obviously made the assumption that I live in a nice village with big houses and plots. Fair enough, it's true, but I got here by earning enough to pay for it. The brutal truth is that the only way of gaining entry to this type of village, is by earning and paying. Suggesting anything else is to distort reality, never mind the market. The world has always spun like this. Don't delude yourself that a few schoolboy changes to the rules will get you a free ticket.
24. bob1 said...
str 2007
Me: ''Peoples investments should not be directed anywhere. They should do as they please.''
You: Without getting off the subject - this policy would lead to no-one investing in anything and having no pension pot atall wouldn't it ?
I didn't mean that there shouldn't be any investments. I meant that no one should 'direct' you as to what you invest in. It should be a free choice
25. mark wadsworth said...
Bob1, "The brutal truth is that the only way of gaining entry to this type of village, is by earning and paying"
Ahem, under LVT and assuming your local council has strict planning rules (i.e. NIMBY), LVT in such areas would also be very high, so the only people who'd be able to buy or live there are those who are "earning and paying". I just don't see a contradiction.
26. str 2007 said...
bob1
Even the most historic and gorgeous villages benefit from children keeping the local scholl open and village shop open etc.
We've seen the young priced out of many little villages only for them to 'loose something' they once had.
Houses would still be more expensive in these enclaves as the stricter architectural requirements would probably double the cost per sq ft. but this would still be a lower figure than that currently asked for due to overly strict planning laws.
There is a problem we 'as tax payers' are all being asked to share in. I am trying to come up with a solution, it only seems right we should all share in it.
The last thing I'd want is for my new idea to destroy beautiful villages - just make them slightly larger and in keeping.
27. timmy t said...
LVT is the way forward. I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it.
28. mark wadsworth said...
Or to sum up, people who want to live in chocolate box villages, instead of a huge mortgage and modest council tax would have to pay a smaller mortgage but much more LVT (the overall bill is likely to be much the same either way).
Normal people like STR and me would live in normal towns with normal houses and liberal planning laws, pay very little mortgage or LVT and have plenty of money left over to save into a pension or whatever.
Fair's fair.
29. shipbuilder said...
8. bob1 said...
"shipbuilder
I would like to add people with beards to my list. My comments were also designed to shake out a few commies, so you're now on the list as well.
I wasn't actually being serious. The original idea is so unworkable and 'Citizen Smith' that I decided to parody Alf Garrnet. I was secretly hoping to shake out a few BNP nutters into the bargain."
Lol, very good...so the only flaw is that it is 'unworkable?'....aye, add me to your list.
30. denzil said...
Mark Wadsworth said:
"@ Denzil, you are engaging in the usual "bash the property developers" dead-end."
Hold on a sec. Though I'll put my hand up and state I believe most new developments are piss poor rabbit hutches, all sat on top of each other if I referring to the originally point of this blog "str 2007" said:
"Each town/village throughout the country should make and always have available 5-10 building plots for owner occupiers to build there own houses."
For that scheme to work it should be restricted to the group str 2007 mentions.
The reasons WHY we end up with piss poor, cheaply constructed boxes that give you the luxury of listening to your neighbour take a dump was certainly not solely pointing the finger of blame at the builders. My father is a builder and I understand the economics of that environment. Regarding the LVT, I've always struggled to understand how it would get rid of the speculative element that cause booms and busts. I've read that it's speculation in land prices that fuel the booms, very chicken and egg. Personally I'm not convinced as it always seems the other way around with the land going up to reflect the growing asset bubble.
As I said, I'm no expert on LVT so please feel free to shoot me down. I do intend to spend some time attempting to understand it in greater detail. At first glance it seems unfair (not attempting to wind you up) in the same way that the poll tax was unfair. It seems to be assuming a fair distribution of wealth in the first place. I'm not convinced it is a solution to wild house price fluctuations.
31. denzil said...
Mark Wadsworth said:
"Normal people like STR and me would live in normal towns with normal houses and liberal planning laws, pay very little mortgage or LVT and have plenty of money left over to save into a pension or whatever.
Fair's fair."
So people that are not normal like farmers will pay a hell of a lot more. That seems fair.
32. mark wadsworth said...
@ Denzil, you are quite right, to say that the 'bubble' is in land prices or in house prices is chicken and egg, actually there are three elements to property prices
1. The bricks and mortar
2. The location itself (Mayfair will always be more expensive than Dagenham, whatever happens)
3. The bubble element.
For convenience, it is easier to lump "location" and "bubble" into "land values", i.e. everything that isn't bricks and mortar.
As to 'fairness', I don't do fairness. LVT actually assumes there are wild disparities in the amount of land people own and big differences between desirable and undesirable areas as well as (in the absence of LVT) booms and busts. To the extent that we can talk of "fair", it's about getting what you pay for. Ability to pay is a red herring - once the system is in place, lower income people would gravitate to cheaper areas where LVT is minimal and rich people would still live in Mayfair.
And a simple LVT levied as a fixed percentage of "land values" (i.e. location plus bubble) would obviously act like a much higher interest rate, so would automatically keep prices low - and if it didn't, then so what? We'd have loads of tax revenues to cut the really bad taxes on incomes, turnover, production and employment!!!
33. bob1 said...
str 2007 @24 yes thats more like it
denzil@28 agreed. There is too much dreamy unrealistic twaddle tied up in this LVT idea. Meanwhile back on earth
34. shipbuilder said...
28. denzil said...
"As I said, I'm no expert on LVT so please feel free to shoot me down. I do intend to spend some time attempting to understand it in greater detail. At first glance it seems unfair (not attempting to wind you up) in the same way that the poll tax was unfair. It seems to be assuming a fair distribution of wealth in the first place. I'm not convinced it is a solution to wild house price fluctuations."
I'm no expert either and I suspect that I come from a different angle from Mark W on LVT (i'm more interested in the social impacts of economic systems, if you like). On the 'fairness' angle, LVT is actually the fairest tax for everyone. I would suggest reading 'The Silver Bullet' by Fred Harrison which is good on the fairness/social aspect of it. With LVT, people are taxed on the wealth that they essentially did not earn (land value), rather than the what they created, which income tax focuses on.
35. mark wadsworth said...
OK, Bob1, how about this for "dreamy unrealistic twaddle"
"Let's tax turnover at 15%, tax remaining profits at 28% and employment income at 30% or 41%, we'll have an extra 12.8% tax on salaries and wages, and then spend 45% of GDP on redistribution, quangoes and crap. That'll guarantee a healthy economy."?
And if we're the Tories, we'll promise to increase government spending from £600 billion to "only" £620 billion, as against Labour's plan to increase it to £625 billion. Wow, some choice there!
36. denzil said...
Mark Wadsworth said:
"Ahem, under LVT and assuming your local council has strict planning rules (i.e. NIMBY), LVT in such areas would also be very high, so the only people who'd be able to buy or live there are those who are "earning and paying". I just don't see a contradiction."
Mark, nothing personal at all. I have a lot of time for much of what you say, but, based on the above sentence, you will simply end
up pricing the younger generation out but via another means. They may want to live in the community (family and friends) they grew up in but your argument would imply it is too expensive for them.
The debate seems like a town vs country debate. Seeing as I'm from Somerset it's fairly clear where I am. I'm not too sure that implying that people who don't live in towns are not normal is really helping.
@Bob1. "denzil@28 agreed. There is too much dreamy unrealistic twaddle tied up in this LVT idea. Meanwhile back on earth"
Bob1, it's fair to say we don't agree on much. I'm certainly not calling LVT "dreamy unrealistic twaddle". It may have merit, I'm trying to understand it, as opposed to jumping to an ill-informed opinion.
37. shipbuilder said...
bob1 - If you were a business, would you prefer a land value tax to pay for the intrastructure surrounding your business and the education and health of your employees, an tax on your profits, or pay for them yourself?
38. bob1 said...
mark wadsworth: "living well is the best revenge" Are you for real? Did you lift that from REM or George Herbert?. I've just looked at your website. Explains alot
39. bob1 said...
denzil: LTV is a very simple concept. The way it is being pushed here reminds me of the way some despots abuse religion for their own ends. In its purest form it has merit but some people here are "shoehorning" the concept into their personal agendas.
mark: There are too many nerdy malcontents hiding behind pathetically mangled versions of economic theory. Come on, be honest, you are acting like the ultimate vested interest. We all know that you’d spout any nonsense if you thought it would snag you a cheap house.
40. mark wadsworth said...
@ Bob1, it's from REM.
@ Denzil, if we stopped paying agricultural subsidies, agricultural land would be worth £2,000 per acre (contrast this with £100,000 per plot for residential land), it's hardly worth taxing. Even Adam Smith reckoned that there was no point extending LVT to farmland and I tend to agree.
As to the "pricing out the younger generation", under current rules, they are not only priced out of chocolate box villages, they are priced out of everything. I though I said quite clearly that normal people in normal towns (or indeed normal villages in Somerset) with liberal planning permission would have low house prices and low land value tax, lots of young people and families etc.
The only way that young people will EVER be able to afford to buy in chocolate box villages is if the people who live there drop their opposition to new developments (with or without LVT). I would love that to happen, but I don't fancy my chances of convincing anybody.
41. letthemfall said...
mark w: "The only way that young people will EVER be able to afford to buy in chocolate box villages is if the people who live there drop their opposition to new developments"
Or stop wealthy outsiders from coming in to buy up the place as second homes, which is one area in which LTV may have a part to play. And it is these very people who oppose new developments rather than the locals who really do live there. A consequence of the inequalities in this country.
42. p. doff said...
Methinks Bob1 is 'avin a larf at your expense again, chaps.
Bob, please can I join the list too .... I'm sporting a full set. LOL
43. mark wadsworth said...
Letthemfall, yes, there is the point with second homers as well. A £5,000 or £10,000 annual LVT on their occasionally visited chocolate box villas will soon sort that out. Instead they will spend a few thousand pounds staying in local hotels, creating jobs and so on.
P Doff, Bob1 may be having a laugh, but as to whether I am a VI is a good question.
Yes, as a renter who'd like to see house prices tumble (and if they stay low, so be it) and as somebody who cares about the economy in general, I would like to see a tax system with ONLY land value tax and no other taxes whatsoever.
OTOH, we all know that LVT and tax reductions will never happen. If it never happens, from a personal point of view, I don't care - I am old and rich and will make as much money in the next Tory house price bubble as I did in the Labour one.
44. 51ck-6-51x said...
Let's go for the jugular... just build many many more prisons and be much harsher in the courts, it'll create jobs and social housing at the same time. We can put some of the prisoners on treadmills wired into the national grid all day and have others starring in reality TV shows. It'll be great, honest.
45. 51ck-6-51x said...
shipbuilder said "bob1 - If you were a business, would you prefer a land value tax to pay for the intrastructure surrounding your business and the education and health of your employees, an tax on your profits, or pay for them yourself?"
Hmm, if a normal, selfish person runs a sound business they'd go for the pay for it themselves option, they expect to have greater purchasing power than the average, so why link it to profits (really bad for them) or the value of the land they sit on (which is relatively out of their hands).
Personally I believe some kind of LVT option is relatively good. But I would play up the word relatively since it is a good option within the taxation driven system and generally I believe taxation stifles the free market system.
46. str 2007 said...
51ck
Of course the other option for the business owner is to go for LVT, then sack everyone and go and work at home on his own and pay no tax.
I think commercial property in this country is way too expensive aswell and stifles people taking the first steps of expansion.
Just an opinion.