Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Mad

Justifying a £35m demolition

The capital's property market is distinctly odd. But prime central London, the preserve of the super-rich, reached fresh heights this week with the news that a home in Mayfair is being sold for £35m… with planning permission for a demolition.

Posted by phil @ 02:00 PM (3930 views)
Please complete the required fields.



7 thoughts on “Mad

  • mark wadsworth says:

    If that’s what somebody is prepared to pay for it, that’s what it’s worth.

    Land in that area sells for something ridiculous like £20,000 a square yard, so if it’s a third of an acre, the going price is somewhere in the region of £35 million.

    To put it another way, that LVT bill on it would be about £2 million per year, if somebody is prepared to pay £35 million one-off, why would he mind getting the land for free and paying £2 million a year in LVT?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “why would he mind getting the land for free and paying £2 million a year in LVT?”
    Because then he’d be a renter. Eeuw.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • How much will the council tax on the completed mansion be £600 per year ?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • i remember the 90`s says:

    MW you must be desperate with LVT keep on about on here to your 10 followers .lol

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    IR90s: I’m not desperate and nobody on here is my follower, I agree with the others as much as they agree with me.

    And I can’t help checking my facts and figures first, coming to sensible conclusions and basically being right all the time, it’s force of habit.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Mark,

    I disagree with LVT. This is because i believe in private property rights. however if you called it amenity value tax and structured such as a charge for public provided services, then yes 100% agree.

    But i’ve read two different branches of LVT followers, those who think that the owner of a piece of land should pay a rent or tax because it actually belongs to the public or society, and those who want to use it as a revenue raiser for local public services. I can’t agree with the first, and believe the second it’s a much better way to pay for government than income tax.

    So i dislike the name LVT, as i dont know which school of LVT the follower is talking about.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Nod,
    As I see it there is no inconsistency between LVT and private property rights. It’s just that under LVT thinking you are only entitled to what you have earned plus a fair share of what is gifted by nature and society, as private property. Private property is always mediated by the law otherwise there would be no taxation of any kind and so no government, and I could help myself to your private property.
    N

    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>