Monday, January 21, 2013

Calls getting louder. Yet reponse is deafening silence

I agree with Churchill: let's get stuck into the real shirkers

As Winston Churchill, Adam Smith and many others have pointed out, those who own the land skim wealth from everyone else, without exertion or enterprise. They "levy a toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry". A land value tax would recoup this toll.

Posted by stuartking @ 10:20 PM (2678 views)
Please complete the required fields.



23 thoughts on “Calls getting louder. Yet reponse is deafening silence

  • I cannot believe LVT will happen whilst landowners are the paymasters of politicians.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Wow – an LVT article in the mainstream media.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • LTV – the political elephant in the living room.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • LVT I mean.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Excellent stuff. We’ve had the Poor Widow Bogey in spades and a couple of “The landlord would pass on the tax to the tenant”.

    I can’t be bothered replying in full each time, so I just link to the corresponding replies on my new blog.

    I’m now waiting for a “But tenants would pay nothing so homeowners would pay all the tax” which is equal and opposite to the stupid argument that “The landlord would pass on the tax to the tenant”.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Re-name it ‘location value tax’. This would emphasise that the value of a plot is relative to what’s going on around it and would weaken the notion that ‘this is MY land’.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Icarus, correct, hence and why I refer to it as “LVT” and explain that the tax is on the site premium, not “the land” as such (and certainly not on the buildings).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Ah but that would just be location envy.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • The true shirkers are those who live off corporate welfare. Banksters still in business because they got tax payer bailouts.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Libertass it is stunningly obvious that you are an apologist for the idle rentier class and your argument is either hyperbole ‘do you want the Soviet death system?’ or distraction ‘yes but look at the bankers!’.

    Got a buy to let property then? Well you are truly shopped. Leave while you still have some self respect.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Paul, understand, I do not like the system either, but it is GOVERNMENT policy which made lending for housing so lax, at the expense of money and credit availability for productive industry, mining and farmers.

    It is their allowance of fraudulent mortgage backed derivatives, their artificially low interest rates and taxes on interest income and bank bailouts which set the conditions necessary for buy to let to become a cancer. Understand, that if buy to let investors could get good returns from bank deposits, and if government did not produce the conditions necessary for an artificial asset bubble, they would not play the game.

    So, by taxing these gains, you are just encouraging government to continue on the same path, by allowing government bureaucracies to profit from the ponzi schemes they created and can enhance. Meanwhile, everybody’s cost of living goes up.

    To be radical, truly radical, you must understand the root cause. To do otherwise, and waste times on solutions to symptoms of the root cause is like a bull in a china shop. Economic thuggery if you will, caused by ignorance and economic illiteracy.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Paul, don’t worry about Piddly Ridley.

    He is clearly a Home-Owner-Ist because he cannot distinguish between “bricks and mortar” and “location”.

    Clearly, the owner/landlord/letting agent of a semi-detached house in Newcastle is working just as hard and providing the same services as the owner/landlord/letting agent of one in Wimbledon. And they deserve to keep every penny of the payment they receive for that.

    Now, explain to me why it is that the owner of the Wimbledon house somehow gets paid £10,000 a year more than the owner of the one in Newcastle? it is purely down to the location and has nothing to do with bricks and mortar or actual work. So the LVT on the semi in Newcastle would be close to zero and the LVT on the house in Wimbledon would be £10,000. Both owners get to keep the same money for doing the same work. they are free to swap places if they wish.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    oh dear oh dear oh dear

    Piddly can’t even tell the difference between “rental values” (which are dictated by the location) and “selling prices” (which have indeed been massively inflated with the credit bubble, lousy banking practices, corporatist subsidies and so on).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Churchill was Lloyd Georges right hand man in the peoples budget, which was really about Land Value Tax, even the BBC could not bring itself to mention the real battle going on behind the scenes.

    Piddly – many of us here don comprehend what you are trying to say regardless of your hysteria; now if only you could put as much effort into understanding others as you do into trying to get other to understand you, then you might get a bit more out of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHNrKVTyY6U

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Marx, once again, you use cognitive dissonance, lies and bullying to put your point forward.

    My comments clearly distinguished the difference between location and bricks and mortar. What you fail to recognise is that human action is what gives locations their value. London, for example, has value because humans built railways, embanked the Thames, built docks, built airports, infrastructure, bricks and mortar, motorways, etc.

    Yes, infrastructure is now produced collectively via government action BUT, all government action comes from the taxation of human action, involving destructive, Marxist re-distribution of wealth that disrupts markets. And notwithstanding all that, absent the motorway system, the vast majority of London’s infrastructure was constructed in London prior to Britain adopting the policies of National Socialism.

    The railway system, water piping, reservoirs, embankments, road system, sewers, etc. etc. were all constructed by private enterprise, primarily prior to Britain becoming Socialised after 1940.

    It is true that we inherit land value from human action carried out by our ancestors, but note, one of the key planks of the Communist Manifesto is to abolish inheritance and collectivise it. So again, you exhibit Marxist tendencies which you have no doubt absorbed passively from Marxist propaganda in the school system, from the Socialist BBC broadcasts and the centralised corporatist / fascist news networks.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • In addition, whereas I agree with Mark’s differentiation between inflated values and true values, we simply disagree on the root cause and thus the ultimate solution.

    Marx’s solution is to allow government to tax some of the gains experienced by those chasing bubbles caused by government action. Thus, incentivising government to create more bubbles.

    My solution is to end the Central Bank’s monopoly on the production of money and credit, end their manipulation of interest rates and abolish their ability to print money to fund deficit spending, bank financing and corporate lending. Marx appears happy to continue those things so long as they are taxed yet, when government taxes and thus profits from the above fraudulent activities you will find that you actually get more of them than if government had no ability to claw back some of the profit that re-distributes to the public from their ponzi schemes.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Piddly Ridley, you really do live in your own little world don’t you?

    “What you fail to recognise is that human action is what gives locations their value. London, for example, has value because humans built railways, embanked the Thames, built docks, built airports, infrastructure, bricks and mortar, motorways, etc.”

    Yes exactly, that is exactly what I am saying, it is PEOPLE doing lots of different things which create location values. People built railways because there were passengers, people moved to London because there were railways, they built the docks to provide goods for the people who live in London and some people moved to London to work at the Docks, and so on and so forth.

    Simply building a railway is not good enough, and simply having lots of people without the railways, airports, docks, sewers, utilities is no good either – you need BOTH.

    And pray tell me, what part did the owner of that semi-detached house in Wimbledon play in all this? Absolutely none. He as an individual makes zero zilch contribution to the location value, it takes millions of people a century to create location values in London.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Piddly good to see you are back on the path of true wrongeousness and outright lies again. A week or two ago you were back on the tablets and some of what you said actually made sense.

    “Marx’s solution is to allow government to tax some of the gains experienced by those chasing bubbles caused by government action. Thus, incentivising government to create more bubbles.”

    Nope.

    1. LVT is on the SITE RENTAL VALUE not the CAPITAL VALUE. The tax is paid by the occupant/owner, not the speculator (because speculators wouldn’t own much land any more, there’d be nothing to speculate on).

    2. As a bonus, having LVT would keep the capital values down – it is impossible to have land price bubbles if land rents cannot be collected privately. It drives a stake through the heart of the vampire squid.

    3. But LVT would still be a good idea if there was no such thing as asset price bubbles and state-subsidised banks and so on.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Again, just complete economic illiteracy, rental values do inform capital values, you cannot properly separate them since land owners put up rents when they have to pay more to purchase properties.

    No, this will just encourage government to keep propping up the property market.

    You are like a modern doctor who focuses solely on treating the symptoms not the cause, but eventually your layers of treatment kill the patient.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I bet I’m not the only one who skips over Libertas’ comments on threads like this, especially when he opens with “StuartSerf, you are an ignorant moron…”.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Green Mind, no, every now and then I read them for comedy value.

    Piddly: “Again, just complete economic illiteracy, rental values do inform capital values, you cannot properly separate them since land owners put up rents when they have to pay more to purchase properties.”

    Yes, of course rents influence selling prices. When have I ever said otherwise. But selling prices do no influence rents.

    It’s like share prices. If profits and dividends (rental value) go up, then the share price (capital value) goes up. It would be mad to say “Oh, our share price has gone up. We’d better now start actually earning some more money than last year”

    Further, it is only the rental element which the owner can collect which influences selling prices. If there is a high tax on the location rent, then the selling price comes down accordingly.

    Again, it’s like share prices. If there is a high tax on dividends paid out, this reduces the share price without particularly affecting the underlying profits of the actual business.

    “[Land Value Tax] this will just encourage government to keep propping up the property market.”

    Nope. LVT will encourage the government to prop up gross rental values, i.e. by improving infrastructure, cutting income tax, better schools, trying to reduce crime etc. But by collecting that rental value for national purposes, it simultaneously keeps selling prices down and thus starves the bankers of that easy source of interest income/rental income.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Actually, it’s not always human action or society that creates high land/location values. Some places are just naturally more desireable than others. If someone works hard all their life to earn the extra money to afford to retire e.g on the sea shore, or in a location with a splendid view then why should he have to pay extra tax as well? Wouldn’t that be just another tax on the wealth a person has worked to achieve?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    P Doff, nope.

    All payments made for land are “tax”.

    To paraphrase you; “If someone works hard all their life to earn the extra money to afford to retire e.g on the sea shore, or in a location with a splendid view then why should he have to pay…” a huge shedload of cash to whichever person currently happens to be registered as the owner of that land, even though, in your opinion “it’s not always human action or society that creates high land/location values. Some places are just naturally more desireable than others.”

    I’ve heard this a million times, “It is unfair to tax land values because land owners created those values so it is like taxing their capital” and then in the next breath “It is unfair to tax land values because land owners have no influence over them”.

    Either land owners do create land values, in which case taxing them is no worse than taxing income, or they don’t, in which case their can be no harm in taxing land values, being merely society as a whole reclaiming windfall gains.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>