Lib Dems To Suggest Introducing "a Land Tax Levy"

[Hector]

LVT could be rolled up on retirement and payed when the asset is sold.

Fair enough. But such a system sounds pretty much like Capital Gains Tax?

[shipbuilder]

Fair enough. But such a system sounds pretty much like Capital Gains Tax?

It's for all landowners, including businesses. The idea is that improvements to an area, such as better transport links, lower crime rate, good schools and so on are paid for by the increase in land value that such improvements cause, self-funding in other words. It's not just collected when an asset is sold.

[the shaping machine]

Fred Harrison describes himself as a capitalist. Milton Friedman and Adam Smith both saw a tax on land as better then other alternatives. Assuming you are not an anarchist and believe in at least a small state, then that state needs funding.

1) A tax on land does not = LVT, and anyway the economy (and the wealthy) have changed since Adam Smith's day.

2) Small state = small taxation needs, why use LVT rather than one of the many other taxes?

Businesses will automatically be encouraged to make most efficient use of their land. If people want golf courses on land that could be used for food or housing for others, they'll have to pay, which I think you'll agree is only fair.

But some uses for land may have benefits other than immediate economic return. For example, should we build offices on Hyde Park? Why not concrete over farmland as we can currently import as much food as we want? LVT unless propped up by reams of exceptions and caveats is going to have a stampeding herd of unintended consequences. The world is not as simple as LVT advocates seem to think it is.

All other taxes are less efficient, more regressive or a drag on economic activity.

This is your opinion. Mine is that it is inevitable that LVT would be bureaucratic, complicated, and expensive to collect.

Final point; the disabled, unemployed, and the old are a "drag on economic activity". Efficiency isn't everything (and I'm a right winger ).

.

[shipbuilder]

1) A tax on land does not = LVT, and anyway the economy (and the wealthy) have changed since Adam Smith's day.

2) Small state = small taxation needs, why use LVT rather than one of the many other taxes?

But some uses for land may have benefits other than immediate economic return. For example, should we build offices on Hyde Park? Why not concrete over farmland as we can currently import as much food as we want? LVT unless propped up by reams of exceptions and caveats is going to have a stampeding herd of unintended consequences. The world is not as simple as LVT advocates seem to think it is.

This is your opinion. Mine is that it is inevitable that LVT would be bureaucratic, complicated, and expensive to collect.

Final point; the disabled, unemployed, and the old are a "drag on economic activity". Efficiency isn't everything (and I'm a right winger ).

.

LVT is a tax on land value. I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence.

Wealth hasn't really changed since Adam Smith's day. The minority still control most of the land and resources.

Property rights don't exist without a state. If you want the state to enforce property rights, that needs to be paid for. LVT is the most efficient tax as it is unavoidable and not a drag on economic activity. This is not a matter of opinion as it is easily tested in the real world.

Indeed, more important than any of these, in my opinion, it is the fairest tax.

Our current tax system is hugely complicated, massively expensive with huge amounts of unintended consequences. Simplification would obviously be beneficial. If you were to simplify the system - what tax would you prefer and why? You say 'reams of exceptions and caveats' but really you only need a few for the examples you've mentioned, unless you can list the reams of examples that would require them. As I said, I am not an expert and greater minds than mine have worked out these issues - the answers are there.

Of course I'm talking about taxes - I don't see people in monetary terms and see 'the economy' as well down my list of importance. Hence I would never see the old, unemployed or disabled as a 'drag on economic activity'

Edited September 12, 2010 by shipbuilder

[Reluctant Heretic]

I was brought up in a traditional Labour family

I voted Labour in 1979 and was gutted when Thatcher won

Then I got a job, bought a house and paid my mortgage off all under a wicked Conservative government.

I even, to my eternal shame voted for Blair in 1997, because I believed the lies - 'Things can only get better' Ha bloody Ha!

The thing is hard working ordinary working class people never had it so good as they did under Thatcher

And they will never have it so good ever again IMHO.

Hence my Avatar.

I had a friend who had a friend who worked for Margaret Thatcher - some kind of clerk in Downing Street. Apparently she thought she was a great boss and very fair.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

I was brought up in a traditional Labour family

I voted Labour in 1979 and was gutted when Thatcher won

Then I got a job, bought a house and paid my mortgage off all under a wicked Conservative government.

I even, to my eternal shame voted for Blair in 1997, because I believed the lies - 'Things can only get better' Ha bloody Ha!

The thing is hard working ordinary working class people never had it so good as they did under Thatcher

And they will never have it so good ever again IMHO.

Hence my Avatar.

It's a enlightened man who makes that sort of mental shift.

Good on yer.

[the shaping machine]

My personal view on the idea of land as property - if you hold natural resources as private property, you are impinging on the rights of others to those resources which are essential to life, as the supply is finite. As I understand it this is against libertarian principles.

More socialism (forced equality of outcome) than libertarianism (maximising freedom) I'm afraid.

Land as private property (with no compensation to the wider community) means that a free labour market is impossible, as people are forced to pay others for their food and shelter, and so forced into employment.

So we all get allocated 6 acres to do as we please? What if my patch is a nature reserve, can I build a factory on it?

Of course after several generations the productive will have bought all the best land from the lazy, and some socialist will be whining that "it's just not fair!"

.

Edited September 12, 2010 by the shaping machine

[stormymonday_2011]

1) A tax on land does not = LVT, and anyway the economy (and the wealthy) have changed since Adam Smith's day.

2) Small state = small taxation needs, why use LVT rather than one of the many other taxes?

But some uses for land may have benefits other than immediate economic return. For example, should we build offices on Hyde Park? Why not concrete over farmland as we can currently import as much food as we want? LVT unless propped up by reams of exceptions and caveats is going to have a stampeding herd of unintended consequences. The world is not as simple as LVT advocates seem to think it is.

This is your opinion. Mine is that it is inevitable that LVT would be bureaucratic, complicated, and expensive to collect.

Final point; the disabled, unemployed, and the old are a "drag on economic activity". Efficiency isn't everything (and I'm a right winger ).

.

Land ownership patterns have changed far less than you imagine since the 18th century

Kevin Cahill book 'Who Owns Britain' revealed that 6000 people own 40 million of Britain's 60 million hectares mainly consisting of the Brown, institutions such as the Church Of England and a number of aristocratic families. The bulk the population are crammed into 24 million dwellings on just 4,4 million acres (just 7.7%) of the land.

http://www.who-owns-britain.com/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1841953105/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

People such as the Duke of Westminster routinely make Britains top ten due to their ownership of land alone. In fact land would dominate Britain's wealth list if it was not for foreign plutocrats such as Lakshmi Mittal who chose to live here even though the bulk of their wealth comes from overseas.

The biggest wonder of all is how the British peasants cry foul every time some one suggests that their lords and masters should pay their fair share of tax.

No wonder we are the laughing stock of the world

We connive at our own oppression

Edited September 12, 2010 by realcrookswearsuits

[Authoritarian]

1) A tax on land does not = LVT, and anyway the economy (and the wealthy) have changed since Adam Smith's day.

2) Small state = small taxation needs, why use LVT rather than one of the many other taxes?

Because the rental value of land is an economic surplus, it's what's left after both labour and capital have earned their returns. Taxing either labour or capital doesn't make economic sense when there's another income stream that can be tapped without trampling over production.

One way or another this value will be paid, that's a certainty. But the question is whether we want to allow the money to end up in private pockets and have extra taxes levied on top, or just have one set of costs with a vastly simplified tax system.

But some uses for land may have benefits other than immediate economic return. For example, should we build offices on Hyde Park? Why not concrete over farmland as we can currently import as much food as we want? LVT unless propped up by reams of exceptions and caveats is going to have a stampeding herd of unintended consequences. The world is not as simple as LVT advocates seem to think it is.

If people decide that they don't want Hyde Park anymore why should they be prevented from paving over it?

This is your opinion. Mine is that it is inevitable that LVT would be bureaucratic, complicated, and expensive to collect.

Final point; the disabled, unemployed, and the old are a "drag on economic activity". Efficiency isn't everything (and I'm a right winger ).

The LVT rules if implemented fully would fill be able to fit onto a single A4 sheet of paper, our current tax code on the other hand was running at over 10,000 pages last time I checked.

If it's efficiency you're after then LVT wins hands down.

.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Chef

[Authoritarian]

People such as the Duke of Westminster routinely make Britains top ten due to their ownership of land alone. In fact land would dominate Britain's wealth list if it was not for foreign plutocrats such as Lakshmi Mittal who chose to live here even though the bulk of their welath comes from overseas.

Exactly, the others that make it onto the list are often just plunderers of their home nations and so they're no different to our aristocracy.

[shipbuilder]

More socialism (forced equality of outcome) than libertarianism (maximising freedom) I've afraid.

So we all get allocated 6 acres to do as we please? What if my patch is a nature reserve, can I build a factory on it?

Of course after several generations the productive will have bought all the best land from the lazy, and some socialist will be whining that "it's just not fair!"

.

I was wondering when the 's' word would rear its head - while that's a popular ad hominem attack on here, unfortunately the support on the economic right (including many on here) for LVT means that it isn't so easily dismissed. Have a look round the web for the evidence. Did you miss the link to geolibertarianism?

Edited September 12, 2010 by shipbuilder

[the shaping machine]

LVT is a tax on land value. I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence.

You could for example tax by square footage, one rate for undeveloped land one for built space. Simple and no need for a small army of land valuers.

Wealth hasn't really changed since Adam Smith's day. The minority still control most of the land and resources.

Wealth has changed, and land (other than as building plots) isn't as important as you think it is. The old style aristocracy may have owned land, for the new rich there are plenty of other asset classes to invest in.

Property rights don't exist without a state.

Yes they do, what you have and can hold is yours.

If you want the state to enforce property rights, that needs to be paid for.

OK, 10 pounds a year flat tax. 600M should be plenty.

LVT is the most efficient tax as it is unavoidable and not a drag on economic activity. This is not a matter of opinion as it is easily tested in the real world.

LVT is avoidable, put your wealth into gold.

Indeed, more important than any of these, in my opinion, it is the fairest tax.

I suspect that your definition of fairness is your prime motivator.

Our current tax system is hugely complicated, massively expensive with huge amounts of unintended consequences. Simplification would obviously be beneficial. If you were to simplify the system - what tax would you prefer and why?

First reduce the size of the problem => smaller state.

You say 'reams of exceptions and caveats' but really you only need a few for the examples you've mentioned, unless you can list the reams of examples that would require them. As I said, I am not an expert and greater minds than mine have worked out these issues - the answers are there.

Of course I'm talking about taxes - I don't see people in monetary terms and see 'the economy' as well down my list of importance. Hence I would never see the old, unemployed or disabled as a 'drag on economic activity'

You say LVT is a good idea because it increases economic efficiency, then you say this isn't very important. Perhaps instead of focusing on taxation we should look at spending?

.

[the shaping machine]

I was wondering when the 's' word would rear its head - while that's a popular ad hominem attack on here,

I don't think that what I said was either ad hominem or much of a dig at socialists. Socialism is, as I said, a way of looking at things that focuses primarily on equality of outcomes. Is that untrue?

Unfortunately the support on the economic right (including many on here) for LVT means that it isn't so easily dismissed. Have a look round the web for the evidence. Did you miss the link to geolibertarianism?

Libertarianism if it is anything is the principle that all should have the freedom to do as they please without interference, as long as they grant others that same right. Geolibertarians would seem to hold that the land someone owns is not really theirs, and that they should be forced to pay rent to the state for their continued possession. I suspect not many true libertarians (or right wingers) would agree.

.

[Authoritarian]

Libertarianism if it is anything is the principle that all should have the freedom to do as they please without interference, as long as they grant others that same right. Geolibertarians would seem to hold that the land someone owns is not really theirs, and that they should be forced to pay rent to the state for their continued possession. I suspect not many true libertarians (or right wingers) would agree.

Most traditional right wingers do believe that some people should be forced to pay others for the use of land and this is because they've tended to be the ones collecting the rent (the Tories are really the party of the land owning class). Geolibertarians recognise that land has a market value that people are willing to pay for its use, and it makes good economic sense to use this income to fund that state rather than levy taxes on privately earned income and interest.

"True" libertarians don't tend to agree with geolibertarians in my experience, but this is generally because either the land issue hasn't been flagged up or they don't see it as a problem. It exposes a glaring weakness in their ideolgy imo.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Chef

[Stars]

More socialism (forced equality of outcome) than libertarianism (maximising freedom) I'm afraid.

The standard libertarian position also wishes to restrict liberty; the difference is they (the royal libertarians) want to do it without compensation (of course)

Of course after several generations the productive will have bought all the best land from the lazy, and some socialist will be whining that "it's just not fair!"

Why would the lazy sell it, if the productive need it to work on and can't make (replace it) it ?

The lazy thing to do would be to hold on to the land and let someone else pay you to use it.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Stars

[Traktion]

Good to see this rising up the political agenda. It's the best way to remove the exploitation of natural monopolies.

It makes me smile when I hear some person with a few acres arguing against it, thinking they will be persecuted - they won't. It will be the landed gentry, who have restricted access for the rest of us for centuries. I would expect all but the very land rich to benefit.

If people with lots of land don't want to pay LVT, they can sell it to the people forced to rent off them. I couldn't care less how rich some people are or what they do with their money, just as long as they aren't pushing the cost of living up for the rest of us, living off our wages like parasites.

Some rich person buying up the world's gold and silver doesn't bother me one jot; them buying up the land and renting it back to me at the maximum price I can afford, does.

P.S. Those with land have gained handsomely from this housing boom, from doing little more than holding onto the land. If we are going to sort this mess of an economy out, a LVT would be a good place to start, along with more relaxed planning laws.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Traktion

[Hector]

It makes me smile when I hear some person with a few acres arguing against it, thinking they will be persecuted - they won't. It will be the landed gentry, who have restricted access for the rest of us for centuries. I would expect all but the very land rich to benefit.

If people with lots of land don't want to pay LVT, they can sell it to the people forced to rent off them. I couldn't care less how rich some people are or what they do with their money, just as long as they aren't pushing the cost of living up for the rest of us, living off our wages like parasites.

And what about farmers?

[Tired of Waiting]

LVT could be rolled up on retirement and paid when the asset is sold. Or, the pensioner could sell their large house for use by a family, move to somewhere without empty rooms and enjoy the proceeds.

+ 1

[the shaping machine]

The standard libertarian position also wishes to restrict liberty; the difference is they (the royal libertarians) want to do it without compensation (of course)

You don't increase liberty by forcing others to compensate you for your bad luck.

Why would the lazy sell it, if the productive need it to work on and can't make (replace it) it ?

The lazy thing to do would be to hold on to the land and let someone else pay you to use it.

Think Zimbabwe. Land in and of itself has no value unless you do something productive with it. If we did all have our six-acre plot, many people would simply sell it off in order to buy the things they wanted from someone else.

.

[shipbuilder]

You could for example tax by square footage, one rate for undeveloped land one for built space. Simple and no need for a small army of land valuers.

You still need to determine the rate. However your method is just another version of LVT. LVT is a land tax, not a specific, set in stone version.

Wealth has changed, and land (other than as building plots) isn't as important as you think it is. The old style aristocracy may have owned land, for the new rich there are plenty of other asset classes to invest in.

Land is everything - where our food, clean water, shelter, metals, oil etc. come from. While our industrial economy seeks to convince us that we can separate ourselves from it, that isn't the case now or ever. Any 'natural' asset class would be taxed under LVT.

Yes they do, what you have and can hold is yours.

Either you defend them or the state does. If the state does, then you need to pay. I understand the position of most libertarians to be that the state's main (or only) function is protection of property.

OK, 10 pounds a year flat tax. 600M should be plenty.

Fine. whatever's needed to pay for what everyone agrees the state should be doing.

LVT is avoidable, put your wealth into gold.

Er, yes, or anything else. LVT doesn't apply to those without land. That's not really avoiding it, though, just investing in something else.

If you have land you can't avoid it.

I suspect that your definition of fairness is your prime motivator.

Yes it is. No doubt that's what earned me the 'socialist' label. I believe that land and resources are owned by everyone and that we should all start life with the same opportunities. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Maximising freedom.

First reduce the size of the problem => smaller state.

Yes, but then what tax would fund the smaller state?

You say LVT is a good idea because it increases economic efficiency, then you say this isn't very important. Perhaps instead of focusing on taxation we should look at spending?

I said that the wider economy is down my personal list of importance. By that I mean it, along with government, should be a servant of the people, not the other way round. Efficiency is better if it means less spending and less tax, but not the be all and end all. We could look at spending as well. I am in favour of a citizen's income which would be spent directly, cutting out the government middleman.

Your questions lead me to believe that you've formed some assumptions about me and my views already. That would be a mistake.

[mercsl]

So much for a mobile labor force if you have to pay land tax on top of stamp duty

Any party would-be unelectable on this issue 70% of us are homeowners ...keep dreaming

[shipbuilder]

I don't think that what I said was either ad hominem or much of a dig at socialists. Socialism is, as I said, a way of looking at things that focuses primarily on equality of outcomes. Is that untrue?

Your second paragraph mentioned whinging socialists. Socialism in theory focuses on equality of opportunity. I've no idea how much you know about it, but unfortunately most that criticise it have taken little time to look into it. That doesn't mean criticisms aren't valid, but economic systems are all theory and different in practice when applied to humans.

Libertarianism if it is anything is the principle that all should have the freedom to do as they please without interference, as long as they grant others that same right. Geolibertarians would seem to hold that the land someone owns is not really theirs, and that they should be forced to pay rent to the state for their continued possession. I suspect not many true libertarians (or right wingers) would agree.

If you own land, then you are taking it from someone else and restricting their ability to access the most basic of human requirements. It restricts the most fundamental of human freedoms.

[shipbuilder]

So much for a mobile labor force if you have to pay land tax on top of stamp duty

Any party would-be unelectable on this issue 70% of us are homeowners ...keep dreaming

It would replace stamp duty and other taxes. You should take the time to look into it.

[Stars]

You don't increase liberty by forcing others to compensate you for your bad luck.

The liberty has been removed forcefully, not lost behind the sofa. Being landless and unable to access land isn't a natural but unfortunate human state, it is one that has to be maintained continuously with force

So boiling it down - royal libertarians want to remove liberty without compensating their victims

Think Zimbabwe. Land in and of itself has no value unless you do something productive with it.

The owner doesn't have to do something valuable with land to profit from it, they can get a tenant to do the work and also pay for being allowed on the earth.

The lazy thing to do is sit there collecting the rent

BTW, your weird inference above is that Robert Mugabe distributed land equally

If we did all have our six-acre plot, many people would simply sell it off in order to buy the things they wanted from someone else.

If you are hunting for a rationale for ownership which has the non owners paid to leave the land to the productive, then you need look no further than lvt which embodies this concept

Edited September 13, 2010 by Stars

[rxe]

It makes me smile when I hear some person with a few acres arguing against it, thinking they will be persecuted - they won't. It will be the landed gentry, who have restricted access for the rest of us for centuries. I would expect all but the very land rich to benefit.

Right, so my income tax will go down (great) and I won't need to pay much LVT because I only have a few acres. Where's the money coming from then? The Duke of Westminster and a few others will have to be bankrupted in a year or two to pick up the slack, and once they are bankrupt, who's going to pay?

It is a bit like Vince's "mansion tax". People with houses over £2m pay a tax - great, I won't be paying it, political win. Of course the number of people actually paying it will be very low indeed because the vast majority of houses in the land are worth a lot less than £2m.

Though it pains me to say it, income tax is about as sensible as it gets - you have the money, you pay the tax. Taxing classes of assets will lead to strange behaviours.