billfunk

Off the top of my head I thought that the tax would be at the unimproved rate until change of ownership when it would be reassessed at the higher rate. This way the person who improves the land gets the benefit of lower taxation - he is not penalised for improving the land. Though this in itself seems to encourage the hoarding of land once improved. The tax may also have to take into account how much land an individual owns, the more land = the higher the tax. This would be of most benefit to residential land. I think the consequences of a monopoly in agricultural land are less damaging than those in residential land ( though there is overlap between the two categories as one can be turned into another).

TBH Traktion I was only speaking in generalities and from intuitive thinking alone. I'm not really fit to add much to this debate. I only gave it my two pennorth worth before Shaping Machine started asking impertinent questions. Simply put: anything that simplifies and encourages productivity whilst punishing monoplising behaviour I am for. At the moment the tax system is just an absurd clusterfck on the middle and lower classes. Rich people seem to get off almost scott-free. Absurd.

I stand corrected. ~Cap doffing emoticon~

All the more reason not to vote for an authoritarian socialist government then? Feels like straw man TBH. Why do anything then? The next government could hypothetically ruin anything you do now. It is wrong not to make best use of limited resources when they are vital to the survival and happiness of others. I would probably work out potential value based on how fertile the agricultural land was. In terms of residential land it may be a common local multiplier times by the square meterage.

I would tax potential in the hope that it would encourage people to make better use of land (which begs the question what would I do once someone had transformed marginal land into highly productive land). It might be beneficial to seperate residential land from agricultural land. There would also be land of high environmental importance. There are two main issues to my mind: 1. Lots of agricultural land being used rather unproductively in the hands of the few. 2. The positive feedback loop of high house prices - more BTLs - scarcity leading to higher house prices - more BTLs.

The government is to define "productive" presumably along liberal, capitalist, free-market, laissez-faire lines. Land is essentially worthless. It's only true worth is when man makes it productive. Far better to encourage productivity from it rather than to engineer scarcity, encourage hoarding and rent-seeking from it. Land Value does not vary constantly. The market price may vary but the value will remain the same, unless it is made more or less productive. As I said, I would tax the potential value of the land. This would remain fairly stable, unless there was a significant change in usage. Yes, through EU environmental subsidies. Also a farmer rearing livestock is making a less productive use of land than a farmer growing arable. The evidence is universally apparent across the land.

I am with Porca #18 and Traktion on this one. Tax the hoarding of assets and unproductive use of resources. Try not to tax the productive wealth generators. 1. What side effects do you forsee? The main one on my mind is that people with masses of land currently pay no tax on it. If they were obligated to pay even a small tax on its value they would need to sell some. Whilst I am not a communist I do find a situation where 1% of the population own 70% of the land to be absurd given we live on a small island/s and often in tiny little houses. Also a lot of land in this country is used very unproductively. Self-employed youth gave a wiki link to this the other week... can't quite remember what it was... 2. I don't know why land would necessarily need to be revalued constantly. Is there something intrinsic to all forms of LVT that would make it necessary to constantly revalue? IMHO the LVT should be on potential value of the land, with marginal agricultural land being cheaper than fertile land. If someone manages to make a larger profit from marginal land then fair play to them. No need to readjust the rate. 3. Is kind of the whole point. The economy needs people to generate wealth not hoard assets unproductively. It might force farmers to make best use of their land instead of sitting on it conservatively as it currently the case. 4. It is a non-starter because it would hit the very wealthiest people the most. Let's face it most political changes are currently non-starters as we are in a period of entropy. This says more about the state of British politics and less about LVT.

Interest on Spanish 10 year bonds up again today. Trading at 5 yr highs. At this rate they will be 7% by the end of the week. http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GSPG10YR:IND/chart/

You might be surprised but a lot of people nowadays would not know how to cook rice, potatoes or eggs. In deprived areas the high streets are full of dirt cheap takeaways which will fulfill the appetites of the poor folk, if not their dietary needs. As a pure guess I would think the local food bank you reference would be serving junk as it is the only food its clientele will eat. NHS workers have told me how good (some) of the hospital food is. Yet the vast majority still have Maccy Ds brought in. It is a proper decadent society. Money alone won't solve it.

I don't know if I have read that the way you have intended or I am just drunk on the immense England draw but... I can't see how you think that a large personal tax allowance is a bad thing? The fact there are millions who do not claim the full allowance is a good thing to me. The potential to earn untaxed income is the holy grail of a capitalist society. Or have I got this all wrong? Personally, I don't think the government will implement a citizens' income as it is far too laiseez-faire with regards to people's lives. The gov loves having its fingers up everyone's arsholes. OO Matron.

That is the real story.

The odd thing is that they wait at the front door during opening hours rather than the back door at closing time. Only 40% (ha!) of the food that leaves through the front of the supermarket will be wasted. 100% of the food in the skips at the back is likely to wasted unless there is a coven of freegatarians in Buxton. Wrong-thinking; guilt-tripping.

Ironically, this article seems to reinforce rather than oppose my argument. The error it makes is to perceive benefits/taxation/credits as a personal and direct transaction with each person or demographic group. This is true in one respect but since when should politics be about the individual or the base pandaring to demographics? Politicians should be interested in forming stable, predictable and sustainable systems which encourage productivity, cohesion, happiness. That article actually highlights a lot of what is wrong with short-termist, transactional modern democracy. They actually get paid to traverse the labarynthine tax credits system instead of simply standing up and shouting, "This is bollcks!"

Because taxing poor people less is never going to work. For one they are too thick to work this out. Far better to tax them more, then invent a complex and intractable system of rebates which we can use to bribe them with. Poor people are stupid enough to go for that. Let's win elections by patronising them. Then in generations to come we will have a population full of feckless dependent people who will have no choice but to vote for us. We grow stronger by making the people weaker.

Not comparable to the omnilympics. Lympic Kevball world Kevball euro Everything else.

Only if we can not provide for ourselves those things that form the most basic aspects of happiness we will be fcked either way, PMA or not. It all comes from BOMAD or the damn state nowadays. I barely know anyone who has got anywhere of their own bat. It won't make me any happier if I have to go cap in hand to mummy and daddy so they can buy me a nice new house, than it will to drop out and claim HB and the dole or else to work for it all and have spunked away into everyone else's BTL empires, tax, ponzi schemes 1-2-3. Positive action has largely been detached from reward. Sure fire way to make people unhappy in my book. Can't blame ToW for being trapped in that bllocks.

I understand that. The tone of the original post came across as perversely condescending though. You could take that line with anyone in any position in life. It might even be beneficial if done on a personal, nurturing level. On a website it just comes across like you are rubbing the guy's nose in it a bit. I would also not want you to harbour under the misapprehension that because this is a very prosperous country, its inhabitants are necessarily free and wealthy themselves. I know plenty of "professionals" who have made excellent life choices and have got almost nowhere.

Well, at what point does a situation change from being all about free-will to one of coercion? People can make perfectly valid decisions in very poor environments. This does not make them happy, it makes them less sad. Do you want me to chop off your left arm or your right arm? Free choice. How does your theory fit in with the Chinese factory-worker suicides? By your logic they were happy, as they stayed in their jobs, right up until they topped themselves?

You are some weird kind of psychotherapist sociopath I think.

You mentalist.

So there's a website now... so what of the thread title? Christ, all this switch-hitting... if you want to punch me just come out and twt me one. Why all the pretence...? Yeah, nice thread. Fair Play... there's me old chin on the line. To reitterate though: lots and lots of people have bought into the idea that land/property/houses are worth much more than they are in reality.

I think you and Gerard Fisher 1 are a bit mental. Just because there is a surplus doesn't mean we necessarily have to spunk it on the housing market. Houses/land are worth sweet FA without state intervention. More rational to invest it in [real] businesses and people [also real] who might look after you when you are close-enough-to-death-to-sht-yourself-a-lot-but-not-close-enough-to-actually-KICK-IT. But then I guess your plan is to overspend then raise a family in the hope they look after you. Shtting oneself and all. In any case there is no need to spunk it all away on housing. It's a lot of mentalist bulls fcking mentalist bears out there...as if the only paridigm is one where land/houses are more or less valuable. They are more or less worthless, everyone knows this.

Interesting. Do you have figures for the economic viability of the cells and/or storage costs and/or the extent to which they need to be backed up by conventional sources? At present my main concern is the expected durability of the cells. If they need replacing every decade then I am in no rush to install them at £8k.

From watching pornos like Grand Designs it is clear that there are plenty of energy efficient sustainable options. Yet all we seem to get is lots of samey energy inefficient houses built at deliberately jaunty angles in souless estates with no amenities, insufficient parking and toliets that don't flush properly. Sustainability-lite is queering up our lives. Our new builds are to architecture what Coldplay are to rock music.

Anyone who has not yet emigrated or dropped out is a bull in my peculiar opinion. Anyone who actively wishes to either rent or buy in this country is either mentally retarded or too much already invested in the whole house of cards.