Friday, Sep 03, 2010
Get of my land!!!!
Grauniad: With land value tax, Labour is getting it right
"Andy Burnham's radical idea could replace council tax, stamp duty and inheritance tax, and raise more than all three combined"
Posted by phdinbubbles @ 11:42 AM (1322 views) Add Comment
22 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. Pyracantha said...
Oh, so it's Andy Burnham's idea...
2. mark said...
1. Pyracantha
sounds like it flower
3. Wageslavex14 said...
It really annoys me that it ws Andy Burnham who brought this up, and that he couched it in terms of socialism.
To me, if LVT were used to replace consumption taxes (e.g. VAT) and to reduce income tax, it would be a very capitalist tax, in that it promotes entrepreneurial activity and productivity at the expense of idle rent-seeking.
Unfortunately, both Burnahm and the author of this Guardian article have hijacked the idea and made it totally unappealing to most of little England.
4. Crunchy said...
Why so late Labour?
Anyone for a hot potato?
5. Crunchy said...
1. Pyracantha
Welcome to HPC. I would have gone for 'Firethorn', expect to hear from techieman soon.
6. charlie brooker said...
Pyracantha
A disease you get from eating all the pies?
7. mark said...
a prickly evergreen bush with flowers
8. cyril said...
I don't really get the idea of LVT. Isn't it just the same as council tax?
9. nickb said...
@cyril
Er, no. The owner of the land has to pay it, not renters, and if demand for land is the origin of the bulk of accumulated wealth, this is fairly just. Since you can't withdraw land from existence it is non-distortionary, unlike income and other taxes (though personally I think there is still a good role for income tax with LVT), nor can you hide it.
Nick
10. doomwatch said...
I like Andy Burnham, but I'm afraid for him with chat like this. If he's elected, I'm afraid he'll go the same way
as the great John Smith.
11. sibley's b'stard child said...
Doomwatch, I concur re: the lamented demise of JS however you don't really think he went the way of, say, Dr Kelly?
12. Simon said...
Doomwatch @7
Thanks for reminding us of John Smith .
Were you are aluding to him being bumped off or something else ?
There was a real opportunity 13 years ago to prepare Britain for a future which everyone with half a brain could see would be so different to the past . Perhaps he would not only have told people to "think the unthinkable" but acted upon it .
13. Crunchy said...
8. Dr Kelly?
Was that the wmd guy who forgot about his daughters wedding.
14. powerofnow said...
@5 People get stuck on the tax, the issue is the land.
Land is the fundamental resource; all our wealth is underpinned by land. Control and access to land determines economic outcomes and ultimately controls us. We still live under a landocracy.
LVT is a hot topic on this forum because it is recognised that if you place a charge on land usage (LVT) you would take the speculative element out of the housing market, reduce land values and allow people to make a home without selling their soul.....
something like that.....
15. hash browne said...
I understand and agree with the principle of LVT, as opposed to council tax, stamp duty, etc
however, I'm not entirely convinced it would have such a massive impact on house prices in the long term.
Ok, in the short term it would bring about an increase in supply but in the medium-long term it would just be seen as a substitute for council tax, etc. I can't see how that would stop speculation.
For me, the biggest driver of the housing market is the availbility of credit. Strict lending criteria for banks is the best way to control speculation IMHO.
16. inbreda said...
I am shocked at the number of anti LVT comments under the article. I thought at least 2% of the grauniad readership would have a brain. None of the arguments actually stack up - I know this from having read thousands of patient mark wadsworth posts. It seems the debate has to be continued until everyone understands both sides of the arguments. Long way off, and too many people bitterly opposed IMO
17. nickb said...
As an aside,
Why did Burnham have to wait until Labour getting kicked out of government, before he can start speaking sense?
It ain't going to happen until there is a major crisis, so roll on peak oil, house price crash, relocalisation and the need to have more locally grounded businesses with affordable premises.
N
18. clockslinger said...
He's alright and even vagule Socialist which is why there is a concerted effort in the Nu Labour elite to get either Mark or Carol Thatch...sorry, either Jedward or Tony Milliband elected. Their heated political arguments as to whether we have should have Sainsbury or Tesco as the Official National Supermarket break radical Nu ground. No turning back!
19. the number cruncher said...
well said clockslinger - it was an astute move to get Abbot on the card to split the vote of the few socialists left in the Labour party.
20. peter said...
Raise more than the other taxes eh?
So its actually a plan to take even more off us.
Aren't they taking enough already?
21. powerofnow said...
@15 not more tax from the majority, we would pay about the same but with the resulting reduction in land values we would all benefit from a reduction of costs throughout the economy. However it would have a massive impact on the few mega land owners; it would transfer wealth and privilege from the mega land owners to the landless peasants.
22. mark wadsworth said...
Hurray for the idea of rolling council tax, SDLT and Inheritance Tax into LVT.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more radical I get. If you know about economics, you know that housing is a 'normal good' in other words the value of your house (or the rent you pay) is a fairly constant multiple (or fraction) of your household's income.
So whether we tax income or the value of your house doesn't make much difference.
Therefore, we could bin just about all taxes (apart from duties on fags, booze, petrol) and I mean ALL, including income tax, VAT etc and replace them with LVT or property value tax. People with house-price-to income ratio > 6 would end up worse off (they can either accept it, trade down or work harder) and people with house-price-to-income ratio < 5 would end up better off. Most people wouldn't notice much difference.
And for the sake of this discussion let's just exempt pensioners who only own one property and use it as their main residence (these people currently pay very little income tax, to be fair).