Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
D'artagnan

Tax Land, Rather Than Income

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

Not sure whether this has been posted before, but I found this very interesting video on the idea of taxing Land rather than income, thereby rewarding those who put things into society and taxing those that take things out of society:

Not sure about the idea of a 'Citizen's income' though! :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi there,

Not sure whether this has been posted before, but I found this very interesting video on the idea of taxing Land rather than income, thereby rewarding those who put things into society and taxing those that take things out of society:

Not sure about the idea of a 'Citizen's income' though! :-/

Fred Harrison. Yes he's well known round these here parts, thanks for the vid I'll catch up with these at some point.

I reckon I've seen hundreds of threads about this blokes ideas over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a good idea. The farmers will simply pass it on in terms of food prices to consumers. Many of those will go out of business as food is imported from countries with lower costs. This will hurt the balance of payments and lower the pound further. Everything we buy from abroad must be paid for by selling them an equivalent value of goods. It is smart to produce what we can and avoid having to find new stuff to export. The other problem is that most wealth does not come from land. It comes from owning other means of production. I note you don't wish to tax factories or offices.

I suspect your motivation originates from the idea of taxing it so that farmers will sell it to house builders. Yet this is not the problem, you can buy agricultural land cheaply as it is. The problem is the planning process. A piece of land rises in value 100x if it gains planning permission. The way to make homes more affordable is to relax the planning process. This would also allow us to solve energy problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KingCharles1st

Not an easy solution, but Land and planning need a drastic overhaul in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not an easy solution, but Land and planning need a drastic overhaul in the UK.

The idea that an agency that can tax will voluntarily limit itself to just land and won't slowly take over everything is quite simply insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not a good idea. The farmers will simply pass it on in terms of food prices to consumers.

No that's incorrect

a properly implemented land tax is not passed on in the price of goods and services because it acts to reduce the price of land ,so reducing the costs involved in production.

An easy way to think of this is that most farmers in the uk are tenant farmers and so they already effectively pay the tax to their landlord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60,000,000 acres of land in the UK

28,000,000 of which are owned by 40,000 families, these are the families where the ruling elites come from. Politicians, bureaucrats, magistrates. police chiefs, senior civil servants, media boss etc..

There are 5,000 families that own over 1000 acres each.

2,800,000 are owned by just 16,800,000 home owners.

The land occupied by the royal family 677,000 (crown est, duchy cornwall, lancs and private)

Forestry commission 2,400,000

Mod 750,000

The National trust England Wales 550,000

Pension funds 500,000

Utilities 500,000

The Crown Estate 384,000

The Duke of Buccleuch 277,000

The National trust of Scotland 176,000

The Duke of Atholl 148,000

The Duchy of Cornwall 141,000

The Duke of Westminster 140,000

The Church of England 135,000

The Invercauld Trusts 120,000

the Alcan highland estates 116,000

The Duke of Northumberland 110,000

The Earl of Seafeild 101,000

The Portland Estates 95,000

The RSPB 90,000

Co-op farms 90,000

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html

Edited by enrieb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
60,000,000 acres of land in the UK

28,000,000 of which are owned by 40,000 families, these are the families where the ruling elites come from. Politicians, bureaucrats, magistrates. police chiefs, senior civil servants, media boss etc..

There are 5,000 families that own over 1000 acres each.

2,800,000 are owned by just 16,800,000 home owners.

The land occupied by the royal family 677,000 (crown est, duchy cornwall, lancs and private)

Forestry commission 2,400,000

Mod 750,000

The National trust England Wales 550,000

Pension funds 500,000

Utilities 500,000

The Crown Estate 384,000

The Duke of Buccleuch 277,000

The National trust of Scotland 176,000

The Duke of Atholl 148,000

The Duchy of Cornwall 141,000

The Duke of Westminster 140,000

The Church of England 135,000

The Invercauld Trusts 120,000

the Alcan highland estates 116,000

The Duke of Northumberland 110,000

The Earl of Seafeild 101,000

The Portland Estates 95,000

The RSPB 90,000

Co-op farms 90,000

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html

Land ownership is no problem under a land tax sytem so you could own as many acres as you wanted, its just that you would be required to pay back the value that you're taking away as compensation for those that are now denied access to your piece of space. The landed aristocracy are a bit of a red herring (although not completely) as far as this is concerned because a large portion of the land they own is of low value.

Edited by chefdave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not a good idea. The farmers will simply pass it on in terms of food prices to consumers. Many of those will go out of business as food is imported from countries with lower costs. This will hurt the balance of payments and lower the pound further. Everything we buy from abroad must be paid for by selling them an equivalent value of goods. It is smart to produce what we can and avoid having to find new stuff to export. The other problem is that most wealth does not come from land. It comes from owning other means of production. I note you don't wish to tax factories or offices.

I suspect your motivation originates from the idea of taxing it so that farmers will sell it to house builders. Yet this is not the problem, you can buy agricultural land cheaply as it is. The problem is the planning process. A piece of land rises in value 100x if it gains planning permission. The way to make homes more affordable is to relax the planning process. This would also allow us to solve energy problems.

I think the idea is to price the LVT at just enough to stop people hoarding the land. If the land isn't productive, then it can be put up for auction.

I agree planning law has to be changed, as well as monetary reform, but a combination of all 3 would reallocate the resources of the UK in a fairer way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Land ownership is no problem under a land tax sytem so you could own as many acres as you wanted, its just that you would be required to pay back the value that you're taking away as compensation for those that have are now denied access to your piece of space. The landed aristocracy are a bit of a red herring (although not completely) as far as this is concerned because a large portion of the land they own is of low value.

Yep we could build houses on all that low value land that the queen claims ownership of. If they cannot work the land and produce something of value then they can sell the land to pay the tax.

lots of land = lots of tax,

not much land = not much tax

The productive land can be farmed or mined and the unproductive land can be used for housing, industrial uses, power stations, wind farms, military bases, airports etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not a good idea. The farmers will simply pass it on in terms of food prices to consumers.

Farmers are agri-businessmen who run farms. Landowners own land. They aren't the same.

In all my years farming I met very few farmers that owned their land. It was either tenanted, leased, contracted, mortgaged, owned by a trust, owned by their family, or they were just employees. If you want to be a farmer and the landowner at the same time you'll need to be lucky enough to inherit an entire farm from Daddy and have no siblings, and for Daddy and Grand-daddy, Great-Grand-daddy to all have inhertied an entire farm with no siblings; otherwise somewhere along the way you'll be splitting it up.

Remember that quite a lot of land is used for non-agricultural activities: horses, growing, recreation, woodland, forest.

I do agree with you the problem is planning. If we relaxed and taxed planning then we'd be better off. You could tax a factory on its land and the planning on its land too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite
Hi there,

Not sure whether this has been posted before, but I found this very interesting video on the idea of taxing Land rather than income, thereby rewarding those who put things into society and taxing those that take things out of society:

Not sure about the idea of a 'Citizen's income' though! :-/

It's not a bad idea, and the farmers could be given tax breaks to help them out with it. It won't happen because the rich own all the land. As the rich don't pay tax now they'd find it much harder to get out of their tax-paying obligations if it were based on land. So forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a bad idea, and the farmers could be given tax breaks to help them out with it. It won't happen because the rich own all the land. As the rich don't pay tax now they'd find it much harder to get out of their tax-paying obligations if it were based on land. So forget it.

Small scale family farmers would probably pay much less tax than they do now. Currently the subsidies that are paid, like the set aside policy, bypass the farmer and benefit the land owner in the form of higher land rental prices.

Kevin Carhils book Who Owns Britain is recommended reading.

Fred Harrison is also very vocal on this issue.

http://renegadeeconomist.com/video/documen...ayal-lords.html

Edited by enrieb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sort of quite like the idea of land 'doing nothing'.

What would happen if you taxed it? Would it have to work?

A land tax doesn't stop land from doing nothing, it only applies to land that becomes valuable enough to sell to others. A piece of land in the middle of nowhere with no planning permission then would attract zero tax because it reflects the rental price; zero.

If it was implemented properly it would stop unearned value from building up in the land which at the moment leads to speculative frenzy and unsustainable boom busts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A land tax doesn't stop land from doing nothing, it only applies to land that becomes valuable enough to sell to others. A piece of land in the middle of nowhere with no planning permission then would attract zero tax because it reflects the rental price; zero.

If it was implemented properly it would stop unearned value from building up in the land which at the moment leads to speculative frenzy and unsustainable boom busts.

It's an attack on human beings based on arbitary criteria.

The sort of person who goes in for that sort of behaviour won't stop at just land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's an attack on human beings based on arbitary criteria.

The sort of person who goes in for that sort of behaviour won't stop at just land.

No its based on the price of land. You pay the full market price of land anyway so you may as well pay it to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its based on the price of land. You pay the full market price of land anyway so you may as well pay it to yourself.

Taxes are attacks on human beinsg to get resources.

"Land" doesn't pay taxes - people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taxes are attacks on human beinsg to get resources.

"Land" doesn't pay taxes - people do.

Under a free market the 'owners' of land would pay the rental price back into the community to stop the community from comming and taking their land back. If you want it then you've gotta pay for it or i'll take it back by force, and the same applies to me when I get hold of it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Under a free market the 'owners' of land would pay the rental price back into the community to stop the community from comming and taking their land back. If you want it then you've gotta pay for it or i'll take it back by force, and the same applies to me when I get hold of it ;)

Theres no such thing as communities.

It's one guy pointing weapons at another guy and telling him to hand stuff over or else.

The sort of person who goes in for that won't stop at just land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sort of quite like the idea of land 'doing nothing'.

What would happen if you taxed it? Would it have to work?

Well it kind of depends on whose land it is thats doing nothing. If its your land thats all fine and dandy. But if the majority of land is owned by a small minority and YOU are born onto this earth in the dispossessed majority, unable to afford to buy a plot of land at a reasonable price without becoming a debt slave for the rest of your life, then the fact that the minority hold the majority of land idle, thus limiting the supply of land, should be of great importance to you. Especially, given that the tiny minority have no real legitimate right of ownership on these lands they claim, as a descendant to some robber baron, that raised an army and took it by force from your ancestors.

Edited by enrieb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theres no such thing as communities.

It's one guy pointing weapons at another guy and telling him to hand stuff over or else.

The sort of person who goes in for that won't stop at just land.

So its ok for you to back up your claim to ownership of a piece of land with force then?

That sounds like coercion to me - which is what you're trying to avoid at all costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So its ok for you to back up your claim to ownership of a piece of land with force then?

No, only property.

That sounds like coercion to me - which is what you're trying to avoid at all costs.

That's because it is.

You are trying to balance coercion against coercion, rather than remove the initial attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.