Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

How Lvt Could Be Implemented By Individual Councils

Recommended Posts

It would only be an LVT if it were assessed on LAND OWNERS and not tenants. If you rent, your council tax and LVT should be zero as you don't benefit from the socially created increase in land values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would only be an LVT if it were assessed on LAND OWNERS and not tenants. If you rent, your council tax and LVT should be zero as you don't benefit from the socially created increase in land values.

Yes, true, how then to tax rentiers?

I'd class Buy To Let as business use and charge rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in the absence of a proper LVT, I would support that - as long as the business rates on BTL were sky-high, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fantastic idea.

Additional council tax and huge rebates for lower band property would give a reasonable LVT

It is interesting - although it is a pretty approximate way of doing it as all top-band properties are classified together - but certainly worth keeping an eye on...

Edit: and obviously the owner vs tenant issue is still a large one... I wonder if that also could be changed by referendum - chances are that there are numerically more tenants than btl'rs in any particular local authority, and it doesn't affect owners one way or another.

Edited by Lennon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it very helpful. The benefits also accrue from how you switch taxes away from incomes. Implemented alongside a Citizens' Income to get rid of most benefits. Perhaps other changes such as scrapping the whole pensions mess. I could go on and on, and probably will some other time.

But it's step in the right direction and more importantly opens up people's minds to LVT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would value the land and how? If someone has ten acres of paddocks outside development boundary would this be valued less than a small garden in town? I would not object to LVT if I could choose what to do with the land e.g build 50 houses on my 10 acres.

I haven't got 10 acres by the way, just hypothetical scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would value the land and how? If someone has ten acres of paddocks outside development boundary would this be valued less than a small garden in town? I would not object to LVT if I could choose what to do with the land e.g build 50 houses on my 10 acres.

I haven't got 10 acres by the way, just hypothetical scenario.

The market value minus the building reinstatement value depreciated for the age of the building

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would value the land and how? If someone has ten acres of paddocks outside development boundary would this be valued less than a small garden in town? I would not object to LVT if I could choose what to do with the land e.g build 50 houses on my 10 acres.

I haven't got 10 acres by the way, just hypothetical scenario.

Something like a tax on the undeveloped value of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interesting discussion about my blog post at www.matureeconomy.org advocating the reform of council tax to make it more like a land value tax (LVT). For more detail on LVT see my other posts; unfortunately LVT enthusiasts often complicate it by making it sound revolutionary. In fact a simplified form is the basis of US property tax which runs typically at 1% of property value annually paid to the municipality.

Some have pointed out that LVT should be imposed on the owner, not (like council tax) on the occupier. I don't see this as a big problem given that the owner would have to recover it through the rent anyway. A more important criticism would be that LVT should be charged on empty or underdeveloped land. This is less of a problem in built up areas like City of Westminster. Central London is (as the New York Times recently pointed out) a huge property-based tax haven. Abolishing this will take more than the small changes that I propose, which I prefer to see as a way of letting City of Westminster Council cash in on the tax haven gravy train. (Central government raised stamp duty land tax to 7 or sometimes 15% to cash in on the scramble to convert Euros into London property).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interesting discussion about my blog post at www.matureeconomy.org advocating the reform of council tax to make it more like a land value tax (LVT). For more detail on LVT see my other posts; unfortunately LVT enthusiasts often complicate it by making it sound revolutionary. In fact a simplified form is the basis of US property tax which runs typically at 1% of property value annually paid to the municipality.

Some have pointed out that LVT should be imposed on the owner, not (like council tax) on the occupier. I don't see this as a big problem given that the owner would have to recover it through the rent anyway. A more important criticism would be that LVT should be charged on empty or underdeveloped land. This is less of a problem in built up areas like City of Westminster. Central London is (as the New York Times recently pointed out) a huge property-based tax haven. Abolishing this will take more than the small changes that I propose, which I prefer to see as a way of letting City of Westminster Council cash in on the tax haven gravy train. (Central government raised stamp duty land tax to 7 or sometimes 15% to cash in on the scramble to convert Euros into London property).

Hmm, maximum rent is maximum rent.

Generally, the owner will pay it - they won't charge it as extra rent. Because if they could they would.

The slight exception is that as tenants have more money now, some of that may be extracted in rent.

However if owners are responsible for the LVT, there is a cost to keeping the property empty and so owners will avoid void periods and so rents may actually fall (some money better than none, when it's costing you every month).

It must be the owners who pay as they get the benefits from the socialised improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if council tax doubled (say) for an upper band property under this reform I think the landlord would be under pressure to reduce the rent next time by a similar amount so that the cost of occupancy stayed competitive with similar flats in neighbouring boroughs, and offered value for money e.g. compared with buying a new car. That would make it equivalent to taxing the landowner. No?

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:   206 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.