Guardian: Stop Whacking Pensions And Benefits – Hit Property Instead

[BorrowToLeech]

It would be a killer question because a significant amount of UK landed wealth is still unregistered.

True, but that doesn't mean the courts won't uphold someone's claim to it. In the world of the experiment, no payment means you can't make any claim in the courts regarding land you claim to own.

There's no punishment for not paying though, it's up to you whether you want that service from the government or not.

Edited March 12, 2016 by BuyToLeech

[justthisbloke]

My point about resources was more about consumption of finite resources (oil etc) or consumption of replacing resources at an unsustainable rate (fisheries, for instance). I'm not sure if simple use of land in a non-damaging manner falls into my definition.

But I'll through another philosophical point into the mix: squatting. The law has always[1] recognised hoarding as anti-social - which is why trespass is merely a civil matter. It's very difficult to hoard land as you need to actively, and expensively, and physically keep people off it. Hoarded but unused houses were legally usable by people other than the owner, for instance. Hoarded but unused land could be legally camped on or farmed equally.

[1] For residential property, this is of course past tense. As the loons in parliament have made it criminal to stay in a hoarded, unused, empty house.

[BorrowToLeech]

Given Ricardo's Theory of Rents, LVT makes economic sense to me.

However, I have major philosophical objections. If all land requires tax to be paid for its use then, given that all men have to stand and sleep somewhere, you can never be free.

On balance, I object to LVT.

As has been pointed out, you don't have that freedom. You have to pay rent (or a lump sum) to the special people who do have the freedom.

At heart, that's the key nature of the land market. Landowners are essentially mini governments. Great for them, less good for everyone else.

Giving their power back to central government puts it under democratic control. Not ideal, but better.

Personally, I'd want a system that didn't charge for land below a threshold value. I think you should be able to live unmolested, provided you don't insist on living unmolested on acres of prime real estate. At that point your freedom is impinging on everyone else's.

I think that, In theory, the market could take care of all of this. The outcome of a proper free-market for land would be something like a LVT, with a threshold, and maybe a citizens income on top.

There's an argument that no government would be required, in principle, to make this work. Landowners are getting a service from the rest of us. LVT is the fee. Since we provide the service, we get the fee (citizens income) but moderate land owners would find the charge and fee cancel (the threshold).

That's not as surprising as it sounds. A market ought (in theory) give the optimal distribution. Our land market really doesn't, so either markets don't work (and not a tiny failure) or it isn't a free market at all.

I'd say our current system for distributing land really isn't a free market, it's a hangover from feudalism. The alternative is to basically ditch market economics as useless.

[SarahBell]

We are a nation of cover drinkers and amazon-purchasers.
Put a teeny tax on coffee shop sales and sales tax on everything bought online. (yeehah amazon)
Those taxes could go straight to government coffers
1-5%? How much would that raise?

In 2012 the estimated turnover for coffee shops was £5.8 billion

I wonder how much tax was paid in total?

1 Feb 2016 - Amazon's UK sales smashed past the £6 billion mark last year.

[justthisbloke]

We are a nation of cover drinkers and amazon-purchasers.

Put a teeny tax on coffee shop sales and sales tax on everything bought online. (yeehah amazon)

Those taxes could go straight to government coffers

Why is there a fashion for saying "hmm, I things aren't the way I want them to be = a problem = the answer is tax someone"?

If you don't like Amazon, don't shop there. If you think there's not enough money spent on 5-a-day coordinators/wars-in-foreign-lands/old-people/whatever then keep spending at Amazon and donate your tax savings to whichever charity represents your angst. That way, your angst is addressed 100% and no money is consumed by civil servants or directed towards whichever of 5-a-day coordinators/wars-in-foreign-lands/old-people/whatever that you don't approve of.

[spyguy]

The problem with taxing consumption is when a lot retail moves to a low-tax state.

[dgul]

We are a nation of cover drinkers and amazon-purchasers.

Put a teeny tax on coffee shop sales and sales tax on everything bought online. (yeehah amazon)

Those taxes could go straight to government coffers

1-5%? How much would that raise?

In 2012 the estimated turnover for coffee shops was £5.8 billion

I wonder how much tax was paid in total?

1 Feb 2016 - Amazon's UK sales smashed past the £6 billion mark last year.

Sounds simple - but that is hundreds of thousands of websites that need to be updated. Amazon, Ebay, etc would be fine, they've got the background IT. But hundreds of little shops around the country would have to put massive amounts of effort in to comply. It is bad enough when VAT rates change.

And online is complicated - what about if something is collected... What if I reserve something online and pay when I get there? What about online booking & payment for conventional services? What about online payments full stop (electricity, say).

You could put the tax on turnover though, and make it part of the annual accounts. No need to differentiate between online and high-street though.

I've heard about proposals where you would be taxed on a % of turnover or a % of profit, whichever was the greater... Not seen anything come of it, though.