TIFs are a major scandal here. They are handed out as corporate
patronage with little regard for economic merit.  If you do a Google
search on "Tax Increment Financing" or on "TIFS" you will get
countless sites complaining about them. See:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sullivan_dan_lvt_vs_tifs.html


On 3 May 2005 at 14:27, Wetzel Dave wrote:

> Cheers Karl,
> TIFs or Tax Incremental Financing has been used in the USA but I
> understand is frowned upon by some greens because its been used to pay
> for out of town shopping malls.
>
> I'll ask our friends in the Land Café if they can help.
>
> Dave
> Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Williams [mailto:kwilliams@...]
> Sent: 28 April 2005 01:55
> To: Wetzel Dave
> Subject: Re: Support from the CBI?
>
>
> Hi, Dave
>
> I wonder if you can supply any hard $ figures on how LVT has been used
> to recapture land values in major infrastructure projects? For
> instance, I've heard that the New York metro system was thus financed,
> and that - as a consequence - fares were kept to a lousy dime (for
> travel anywhere over the network) for decades afterwards.
>
> I ask because I've recently joined the Greens economic policy
> committee here in Melbourne, and am in the process of convincing them
> that this is a tried and tested way of financing major infrastructure
> projects. If successful convinced, LVT will be worked into their
> budget proposals.
>
> Of course, I've quoted them many pertinent stats from "Taken for a
> Ride".
>
> Cheers - Karl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wetzel Dave" <Davewetzel@...>
> To: "'Nick Mathiason (Observer)'" <nick.mathiason@...> Cc:
> "'Dinos Kyrou'" <dkyrou@...>; "'Tony V i c k e r s (TV)'"
> <tonyvickers@...>; "'Land Café ( lc1) '"
> <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 8:41 AM
> Subject: LVT: Support from the CBI?
>
>
> Nick
>
> You wrote the following:
>
>
> >From The Observer, April 17 2005
> "The CBI is demanding £300bn of public and private investment in the
> next 10 years on transport. Under Labour plans, the combined figure is
> £240bn. Closing the gap will inevitably involve a wider and more
> flexible version of the road pricing scheme (the congestion charge)
> currently used successfully in London. This, plus innovative fiscal
> mechanisms to capture the increased land value yielded by major
> transport infrastructure, needs to be deployed, says the CBI."
>
> (Full article:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1461456,00.html
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1461456,00.html>  )
>
> Dinos Kyrou, one of our members cannot seem to find any direct
> confirmation of this from the CBI's website.
>
> Was there a press release or did this just come from a
> non-attributable source?
>
> Dave
> Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> ****** ******* The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files
> are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
> entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude
> any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the
> contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are
> not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this
> email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing
> or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
>
> If you have received this email in error please notify
> postmaster@....
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
> the presence of computer viruses.
> **********************************************************************
> ****** *******
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> ************* The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are
> confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
> entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude
> any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the
> contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are
> not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this
> email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing
> or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
>
> If you have received this email in error please notify
> postmaster@....
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
> the presence of computer viruses.
> **********************************************************************
> *************
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide
> underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools.
> Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/J1EolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-
> >
>
> Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
> (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
> To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
> To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

5/3
Hopefully, Mason Gaffney will speak up about TIF's-he's got a great analogy
about what they do and stand for.  We Americans do not like them! They hurt
public/government school tax collection.  I live in a community which has
several-most of which are failures because the projects they are designed
to help, move on or do not bring the needed revenue.

Sue Walton
Evanston, IL (suburban Chicago)

Scott W. Walton & Associates, Ltd.
1111 Church St.-#405
Evanston, IL 60201 USA

847-475-0391-v; efax 775/248-8630
swalton@...

May 4, 2005

This confirms the main dilemma of land tax reform proponents for its
revenue:

- it can be earmarked for specific projects (usually public services)

- it can be used to reduce other taxes (less popular or economically
perverse ones)

- it can be given ("back") to all citizens (as happens with oil royalties in
Alaska
   and is also supported by Earth Dividend and Basic or Citizens Income
groups)

All these options seem to be supported by fractions of LVT-supporters.
They/we agree on the solution, not on the problem.

Paul Metz

_____________________________________________

                 INTEGeR... consult

   Dr Paul E. Metz  Managing Consultant
   Phone               +31 26 362 04 50

   Mobile               +31 653 76 58 85
   Email                Metz@...
   URL                  http://www.integer-consult.com

Market intelligence for profitable green business

_____________________________________________

5/3
Hopefully, Mason Gaffney will speak up about TIF's-he's got a great analogy
about what they do and stand for.  We Americans do not like them! They hurt
public/government school tax collection.  I live in a community which has
several-most of which are failures because the projects they are designed
to help, move on or do not bring the needed revenue.

Sue Walton
Evanston, IL (suburban Chicago)

Scott W. Walton & Associates, Ltd.
1111 Church St.-#405
Evanston, IL 60201 USA

847-475-0391-v; efax 775/248-8630
swalton@...





Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

IDEAS that shaped the nation
Nashville City Paper - Nashville,TN,USA
... He follows those with chapters covering Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self
Reliance" and Henry George's "Progress and Poverty,"...
<http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section_id=12&screen=news&news_id=4
1066>

HOW red are the Greens?
Socialist Party - UK
... tax for companies making more than £1.5 million a year profit, higher
inheritance tax and a land value tax (on ... "Changes in Company Law,
taxation, and in ...
<http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/389/pp4.htm>

CITY blasts local income tax plan as unworkable
Edinburgh Evening News - Edinburgh,Scotland,UK
... Greens: Would scrap the council tax and the uniform business rate and
introduce a land value tax
which they say would ...
<http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=425782005>

CHAOTIC Land Reform Spoiled Noble Idea
AllAfrica.com - Africa
ZIMBABWE'S accelerated and often chaotic land reform programme initiated
five years ago spoiled a noble idea to correct imbalances in land ownership
created by ...
<http://allafrica.com/stories/200504220670.html>

THE Most Hated Tax
Myrtle Beach Sun News - Myrtle Beach,SC,USA

Why do folks hate property taxes so much, when we're forced to pay other taxes
uniformly and fairly, too? We have a theory: This is the only tax that's
subjectively determined.
<http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/opinion/11475998.htm>

RESEARCH and Markets: Critical Issues in Environmental Taxation ...
Yahoo News (press release) - USA
... Land Value Taxation: the Overlooked but Vital Eco-Tax For more
information ...
<http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050429/nyf054.html?.v=6>

MONOPOLY Took a Meandering Route to Atlantic City
Newhouse News Service (NNS) - USA
... and the power of economics," Kennedy said, as well as in a redistribution
of wealth advocated by the popular Philadelphia-born social reformer Henry
George. ...
<http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/irizarry042205.html>

TAX relief not likely to benefit rent payers
Houston Chronicle - USA
... "We really believe that market forces are going to address (the distribution
of) any property-tax reductions," he said. Besides, he ...
<http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3150311>

IMPACT of Property Tax Reform on Renters
Team 4 News - Harlingen,TX,USA
If the new property tax reform bill is approved by the Texas legislature
we will all be hit with new taxes on snacks and bottled water and an increase
in ...
<http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=3253897&nav=0w0vZ2jw>

HOUSE, land tax collection effective in local bodies' hand
Gorkhapatra - Kathmandu,Nepal
... 27: The collection of house and land tax has become more effective
after the municipalities and other local bodies were given the authority
to do so. ...
<http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/pageloader.php?file=2005/04/28/topstories/main14>

IMPORTS? Never!
Mises.org - USA
... Henry George so aptly put it in his 1886 book, Protection and
Free Trade ..online at...http://www.mises.org/etexts/freetrade.pdf

STATS contradict land tax protest
Melbourne Herald Sun - Melbourne,Australia
ONLY a handful of Victorians with land tax bills greater than $1000 have
applied for State Government-funded relief in the past two years. ...
<http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15129115%255E2862,00.
html>

FROM a concrete house came a spiritual rebirth
Charlotte Observer - Charlotte,NC,USA
... Fairhope is a reform community founded by freethinking followers of
the philosopher Henry George...
<http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/entertainment/books/11524785.htm>

Paul,
TIFs are not LVT.
They only collect a part of the uplift in land values, within a stated
corridor and for maybe 20 or 30 years.

Whereas:
LVT taxes all land value, (i.e. current, uplift from a project and all
future increases).
LVT would not apply to just a corridor but to a complete Govt or local Govt
area (e.g. town; Borough; District; County; State; Region or Govt.)

However, if it is the choice of TIFs to fund UK transit schemes or nothing -
I'd chose TIFs over more taxes on wages and trade.

You correctly indicate some of the uses that LVT revenues could be usefully
put.
I'd add paying off part of the national debt and only those public capital
projects that actually add to land values.

To use this difference of opinion as a problem for introducing LVT is
nonsense.

It's like saying London should not have the benefits of congestion charging
(fewer vehicles, fewer accidents, less pollution, less congestion, improved
bus journey times etc. - because there is a disagreement on how to spend the
net revenues - do we improve facilities for cyclists? for buses? for trains?
for pedestrians? for motorcyclists? reduce road accidents? expand green
travel planning? etc. etc.

The important thing is to agree that LVT is the best form of taxation and
when it is introduced have a democratic debate as to how the revenues should
be used to give the greatest benefits.


Dave
Dave Wetzel;





-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Metz [mailto:metz@...]
Sent: 04 May 2005 14:25
To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: FW: [LandCafe] tifs




May 4, 2005

This confirms the main dilemma of land tax reform proponents for its
revenue:

- it can be earmarked for specific projects (usually public services)

- it can be used to reduce other taxes (less popular or economically
perverse ones)

- it can be given ("back") to all citizens (as happens with oil royalties in
Alaska
   and is also supported by Earth Dividend and Basic or Citizens Income
groups)

All these options seem to be supported by fractions of LVT-supporters.
They/we agree on the solution, not on the problem.

Paul Metz

_____________________________________________

                 INTEGeR... consult

   Dr Paul E. Metz  Managing Consultant
   Phone               +31 26 362 04 50

   Mobile               +31 653 76 58 85
   Email                Metz@...
   URL                  http://www.integer-consult.com
<http://www.integer-consult.com>

Market intelligence for profitable green business

_____________________________________________

5/3
Hopefully, Mason Gaffney will speak up about TIF's-he's got a great analogy
about what they do and stand for.  We Americans do not like them! They hurt
public/government school tax collection.  I live in a community which has
several-most of which are failures because the projects they are designed
to help, move on or do not bring the needed revenue.

Sue Walton
Evanston, IL (suburban Chicago)

Scott W. Walton & Associates, Ltd.
1111 Church St.-#405
Evanston, IL 60201 USA

847-475-0391-v; efax 775/248-8630
swalton@...





Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org <http://ecoplan.org>

Yahoo! Groups Links









Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org <http://ecoplan.org>




   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/>


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




********************************************************************************\
***
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as
to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached
transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you
have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses.
********************************************************************************\
***



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,



Economic Rent is the fruit of community access.



Thus, infrastructure is closely linked to Rent and should be the first to be
funded from Rent receipts. I would prefer that Rent be collected and
citizens be billed for infrastructure, but although that is a satisfying
thought, it’s a bit contrived. Perhaps, after infrastructure is paid for,
the rest could be distributed as a citizen’s dividend (CD) but I have doubts
that there would be a significant “rest”.



Although, necessarily, collecting Rent (or LVT)  is the main political
thrust of the campaign, much more important are the economic effects of
collection. It will impose a burden on holding land out of use – or keeping
it underused as slums. Economic pressure will gently but firmly remove the
more deleterious effects of land speculation without the need to pass
(mostly ineffective) laws.



One notes that the modest land reform in the Irish Republic has led to
cheaper land and a greater percentage of home ownership than the UK. Indeed,
cheaper Irish land allowed the building of 52,000 homes in 2001.



(The Brits are going in droves to Ireland to retire so things may change.)



To equal this rate of building, the UK would need to build 917,647 houses a
year. (I believe it’s about 144,000 in recent years.) – I used populations
of 3.4 million and 60 million in this calculation.



When Bevan took over building in the post-war Labor government,  he said the
housing problem would be solved in 6 months with a target of 200,000 homes
(about enough to replace the ones that were falling down).



He failed.



With the return of the Tories, the leaders were confounded by a rank and
file vote at their Conference for a housing target of 300,000. I think it
was Woolton who gulped and accepted it – praising the motion while no doubt
cursing the perpetrators.



The Tories failed.



At the moment, with the space under the house costing between one half and
two thirds of the cost of a home, the present government are failing.



But, they could succeed - and it may be Land Café people who set them in the
right direction.



Harry



*******************************

Henry George School of Social Science

of Los Angeles

Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

818 352-4141

*******************************



   _____

From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Paul Metz
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 6:25 AM
To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: FW: [LandCafe] tifs




May 4, 2005

This confirms the main dilemma of land tax reform proponents for its
revenue:

- it can be earmarked for specific projects (usually public services)

- it can be used to reduce other taxes (less popular or economically
perverse ones)

- it can be given ("back") to all citizens (as happens with oil royalties in
Alaska
   and is also supported by Earth Dividend and Basic or Citizens Income
groups)

All these options seem to be supported by fractions of LVT-supporters.
They/we agree on the solution, not on the problem.

Paul Metz

_____________________________________________

                 INTEGeR... consult

   Dr Paul E. Metz  Managing Consultant
   Phone               +31 26 362 04 50

   Mobile               +31 653 76 58 85
   Email                Metz@...
   URL                  http://www.integer-consult.com

Market intelligence for profitable green business

_____________________________________________

5/3
Hopefully, Mason Gaffney will speak up about TIF's-he's got a great analogy
about what they do and stand for.  We Americans do not like them! They hurt
public/government school tax collection.  I live in a community which has
several-most of which are failures because the projects they are designed
to help, move on or do not bring the needed revenue.

Sue Walton
Evanston, IL (suburban Chicago)

Scott W. Walton & Associates, Ltd.
1111 Church St.-#405
Evanston, IL 60201 USA

847-475-0391-v; efax 775/248-8630
swalton@...





Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
Yahoo! Groups Links









Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org




   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Harry and Dave,

I fully agree with you both and just tried to structure this discussion.
As Dave says in his last sentence:
"The important thing is to agree that LVT is the best form of taxation and
when it is introduced have a democratic debate as to how the revenues should
be used to give the greatest benefits."

we still have to do the other half of the tax reform debate. And no
politician
will agree to introduce the tax first and then start to talk about the
spending.
No voter would trust her or him ...

So, the 3 options are still on the screen ... and now.

Transport infrastructure certainly affects land value. But so does the
presence
of parks, schools, theaters, ...

Many Dutch do retire not to Ireland, but to Spain, where many things are
cheap
and the sun shines .. This is interesting, but hardly relevant for this, or
.. ?

If I have to chose between the options, I prefer the Alaska model:
distribution
of natural resource revenues as a dividend to all shareholders, the
citizens.

But, that is the net revenue, after maintenance and investments ... OK, Dave
?

Paul Metz

   _____

From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Harry Pollard
Sent: woensdag 4 mei 2005 20:54
To: 'Paul Metz'; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [LandCafe] tifs


Paul,



Economic Rent is the fruit of community access.



Thus, infrastructure is closely linked to Rent and should be the first to be
funded from Rent receipts. I would prefer that Rent be collected and
citizens be billed for infrastructure, but although that is a satisfying
thought, it’s a bit contrived. Perhaps, after infrastructure is paid for,
the rest could be distributed as a citizen’s dividend (CD) but I have doubts
that there would be a significant “rest”.



Although, necessarily, collecting Rent (or LVT)  is the main political
thrust of the campaign, much more important are the economic effects of
collection. It will impose a burden on holding land out of use – or keeping
it underused as slums. Economic pressure will gently but firmly remove the
more deleterious effects of land speculation without the need to pass
(mostly ineffective) laws.



One notes that the modest land reform in the Irish Republic has led to
cheaper land and a greater percentage of home ownership than the UK. Indeed,
cheaper Irish land allowed the building of 52,000 homes in 2001.



(The Brits are going in droves to Ireland to retire so things may change.)



To equal this rate of building, the UK would need to build 917,647 houses a
year. (I believe it’s about 144,000 in recent years.) – I used populations
of 3.4 million and 60 million in this calculation.



When Bevan took over building in the post-war Labor government,  he said the
housing problem would be solved in 6 months with a target of 200,000 homes
(about enough to replace the ones that were falling down).



He failed.



With the return of the Tories, the leaders were confounded by a rank and
file vote at their Conference for a housing target of 300,000. I think it
was Woolton who gulped and accepted it – praising the motion while no doubt
cursing the perpetrators.



The Tories failed.



At the moment, with the space under the house costing between one half and
two thirds of the cost of a home, the present government are failing.



But, they could succeed - and it may be Land Café people who set them in the
right direction.



Harry



*******************************

Henry George School of Social Science

of Los Angeles

Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

818 352-4141

*******************************



   _____

From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Paul Metz
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 6:25 AM
To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: FW: [LandCafe] tifs




May 4, 2005

This confirms the main dilemma of land tax reform proponents for its
revenue:

- it can be earmarked for specific projects (usually public services)

- it can be used to reduce other taxes (less popular or economically
perverse ones)

- it can be given ("back") to all citizens (as happens with oil royalties in
Alaska
   and is also supported by Earth Dividend and Basic or Citizens Income
groups)

All these options seem to be supported by fractions of LVT-supporters.
They/we agree on the solution, not on the problem.

Paul Metz

_____________________________________________

                 INTEGeR... consult

   Dr Paul E. Metz  Managing Consultant
   Phone               +31 26 362 04 50

   Mobile               +31 653 76 58 85
   Email                Metz@...
   URL                  http://www.integer-consult.com

Market intelligence for profitable green business

_____________________________________________

5/3
Hopefully, Mason Gaffney will speak up about TIF's-he's got a great analogy
about what they do and stand for.  We Americans do not like them! They hurt
public/government school tax collection.  I live in a community which has
several-most of which are failures because the projects they are designed
to help, move on or do not bring the needed revenue.

Sue Walton
Evanston, IL (suburban Chicago)

Scott W. Walton & Associates, Ltd.
1111 Church St.-#405
Evanston, IL 60201 USA

847-475-0391-v; efax 775/248-8630
swalton@...





Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
Yahoo! Groups Links









Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org




   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links

*      To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/

*      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org



   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would prefer to start with paying the citizens dividend.
Reason: the debate about which taxes are most undesirable will take decades
as it will be abused by special interest groups to win time, as always.
A direct payment of the revenue to all citizens will from day one be
understood to benefit a large majority of the voting citizens.

It is simple, we should concentrate on one problem first: introduce a
revenue-neutral LVT.
And not be seduced to solve another one at the same time - then we probably
get nothing, as history shows...

A second legislative proposal to clean-up the tax structure is also valid,
but another issue.

Paul Metz

   _____

From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
Sent: maandag 9 mei 2005 17:30
To: 'Paul Metz'; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
Cc: henrygeorgeschool@...
Subject: RE: [LandCafe] tifs or real LVT


  I agree Paul,
But would you pay a citizen's dividend while the Government still collects
taxes that damage the economy?
I'd prefer to do both.
Eliminate the undesirable taxes and pay the citizen's dividend.

Dave
Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Metz [mailto:metz@...]
Sent: 05 May 2005 14:53
To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Wetzel Dave; henrygeorgeschool@...
Subject: RE: [LandCafe] tifs or real LVT


Harry and Dave,

I fully agree with you both and just tried to structure this discussion.
As Dave says in his last sentence:
"The important thing is to agree that LVT is the best form of taxation and
when it is introduced have a democratic debate as to how the revenues should
be used to give the greatest benefits."

we still have to do the other half of the tax reform debate. And no
politician
will agree to introduce the tax first and then start to talk about the
spending.
No voter would trust her or him ...

So, the 3 options are still on the screen ... and now.

Transport infrastructure certainly affects land value. But so does the
presence
of parks, schools, theaters, ...

Many Dutch do retire not to Ireland, but to Spain, where many things are
cheap
and the sun shines .. This is interesting, but hardly relevant for this, or
.. ?

If I have to chose between the options, I prefer the Alaska model:
distribution
of natural resource revenues as a dividend to all shareholders, the
citizens.

But, that is the net revenue, after maintenance and investments ... OK, Dave
?

Paul Metz

   _____

From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Harry Pollard
Sent: woensdag 4 mei 2005 20:54
To: 'Paul Metz'; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [LandCafe] tifs


Paul,



Economic Rent is the fruit of community access.



Thus, infrastructure is closely linked to Rent and should be the first to be
funded from Rent receipts. I would prefer that Rent be collected and
citizens be billed for infrastructure, but although that is a satisfying
thought, it's a bit contrived. Perhaps, after infrastructure is paid for,
the rest could be distributed as a citizen's dividend (CD) but I have doubts
that there would be a significant "rest".



Although, necessarily, collecting Rent (or LVT)  is the main political
thrust of the campaign, much more important are the economic effects of
collection. It will impose a burden on holding land out of use - or keeping
it underused as slums. Economic pressure will gently but firmly remove the
more deleterious effects of land speculation without the need to pass
(mostly ineffective) laws.



One notes that the modest land reform in the Irish Republic has led to
cheaper land and a greater percentage of home ownership than the UK. Indeed,
cheaper Irish land allowed the building of 52,000 homes in 2001.



(The Brits are going in droves to Ireland to retire so things may change.)



To equal this rate of building, the UK would need to build 917,647 houses a
year. (I believe it's about 144,000 in recent years.) - I used populations
of 3.4 million and 60 million in this calculation.



When Bevan took over building in the post-war Labor government,  he said the
housing problem would be solved in 6 months with a target of 200,000 homes
(about enough to replace the ones that were falling down).



He failed.



With the return of the Tories, the leaders were confounded by a rank and
file vote at their Conference for a housing target of 300,000. I think it
was Woolton who gulped and accepted it - praising the motion while no doubt
cursing the perpetrators.



The Tories failed.



At the moment, with the space under the house costing between one half and
two thirds of the cost of a home, the present government are failing.



But, they could succeed - and it may be Land Café people who set them in the
right direction.



Harry



*******************************

Henry George School of Social Science

of Los Angeles

Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

818 352-4141

*******************************



   _____

From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Paul Metz
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 6:25 AM
To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: FW: [LandCafe] tifs




May 4, 2005

This confirms the main dilemma of land tax reform proponents for its
revenue:

- it can be earmarked for specific projects (usually public services)

- it can be used to reduce other taxes (less popular or economically
perverse ones)

- it can be given ("back") to all citizens (as happens with oil royalties in
Alaska
   and is also supported by Earth Dividend and Basic or Citizens Income
groups)

All these options seem to be supported by fractions of LVT-supporters.
They/we agree on the solution, not on the problem.

Paul Metz

_____________________________________________

                 INTEGeR... consult

   Dr Paul E. Metz  Managing Consultant
   Phone               +31 26 362 04 50

   Mobile               +31 653 76 58 85
   Email                Metz@...
   URL                  http://www.integer-consult.com

Market intelligence for profitable green business

_____________________________________________

5/3
Hopefully, Mason Gaffney will speak up about TIF's-he's got a great analogy
about what they do and stand for.  We Americans do not like them! They hurt
public/government school tax collection.  I live in a community which has
several-most of which are failures because the projects they are designed
to help, move on or do not bring the needed revenue.

Sue Walton
Evanston, IL (suburban Chicago)

Scott W. Walton & Associates, Ltd.
1111 Church St.-#405
Evanston, IL 60201 USA

847-475-0391-v; efax 775/248-8630
swalton@...





Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
Yahoo! Groups Links









Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org




   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links

*      To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/

*      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org



   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




****************************************************************************
*******
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any
liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and
any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be
advised that you have received this email in error and that any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify
postmaster@....

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses.
****************************************************************************
*******



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It is not just the amount that gets taken in taxes but the cost of
collection and the impact on the wider economy.

Land Value Tax (LVT) is impossible to avoid, hence has low costs and as it
falls on site value (not trading activity) encourages business investment
not land speculation and land hoarding leading to fewer jobs and homes.


Your example of a "window tax" is a superb example of the undesirable
effects that a bad tax can have. (In this case people bricked up their
windows and avoided the tax).

Similarly, income tax and vat put up the prices of all goods and services
whereas LVT diverts a part of land rent (already being paid by businesses
and individuals to land owners) from landowners to the Government.

Dave
Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.


-----Original Message-----
From: J7ChrisMeakin@... [mailto:J7ChrisMeakin@...]
Sent: 10 May 2005 17:41
To: Wetzel Dave
Subject: Re: the fun game



.


  No matter how you take tax out of an economy, it is still the same old
economy you are taking it from.

The idea that there is some magic formula for taxation which can extract
more than other methods of taxation without apparent effect has been with us
at least since the Window Tax, probably much longer, but its longevity does
absolutely nothing for its realism.

Chris



********************************************************************************\
***
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as
to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached
transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you
have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses.
********************************************************************************\
***



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A good academic paper on  the subject:

_http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/05/05/CohenCoughlin.pdf_
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/05/05/CohenCoughlin.pdf)

Regards,
Steve Elkins
Bloomington, MN City Council, District  3



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In addition I would observe that Chris forgets about the "art of taxation".
The esthetics - and logic - of 'good' taxes are very different from 'bad'
taxes.

Take the example of carbon taxes. In this case policymakers are desperately
looking for ways to make companies and citizens reduce their carbon
emissions. With the traditional command & control instruments it seems to be
difficult - to say the least....
Carbon, land and other environmental taxes introduce a synergy into the
system, which traditional taxes are lacking as they punish good behaviour,
like making profits, paying wages, adding value and having incomes. Such
taxes are indeed perverse and a systematic modernisation via ecological tax
reform is attractive.

It has been said before, but as the question is repeated we should repeat
the answer, until we can refer to a simple good booklet or article.

Paul Metz
more on  <http://www.integer-consult.com> www.integer-consult.com

   _____

From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Wetzel Dave
Sent: woensdag 11 mei 2005 12:31
To: 'J7ChrisMeakin@...'
Cc: 'Land Café ( lc1)'
Subject: {Spam?} [LandCafe] RE: the fun game


It is not just the amount that gets taken in taxes but the cost of
collection and the impact on the wider economy.

Land Value Tax (LVT) is impossible to avoid, hence has low costs and as it
falls on site value (not trading activity) encourages business investment
not land speculation and land hoarding leading to fewer jobs and homes.


Your example of a "window tax" is a superb example of the undesirable
effects that a bad tax can have. (In this case people bricked up their
windows and avoided the tax).

Similarly, income tax and vat put up the prices of all goods and services
whereas LVT diverts a part of land rent (already being paid by businesses
and individuals to land owners) from landowners to the Government.

Dave
Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.


-----Original Message-----
From: J7ChrisMeakin@... [mailto:J7ChrisMeakin@...]
Sent: 10 May 2005 17:41
To: Wetzel Dave
Subject: Re: the fun game



.


No matter how you take tax out of an economy, it is still the same old
economy you are taking it from.

The idea that there is some magic formula for taxation which can extract
more than other methods of taxation without apparent effect has been with us
at least since the Window Tax, probably much longer, but its longevity does
absolutely nothing for its realism.

Chris



****************************************************************************
*******
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any
liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and
any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be
advised that you have received this email in error and that any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify
postmaster@....

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses.
****************************************************************************
*******



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org



   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I recently "discovered" a volume of papers delivered at the 1929 conference
of the International Union for Land Value Taxation and Free Trade, held in
Edinburgh, Scotland. One of the papers presented there is this one by Axel
Fraenckel. If, by chance, anyone has any biographical information on the
author, I would very much appreciate hearing from you.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi all,

We recognise that land can be otherwise termed 'nature' or 'natural
resources' and that land includes the unimproved content of that land such
as minerals etc.

So when does land stop being land?

If we have a land value tax which taxes land, or rather the unimproved
content of land, then at what point do we stop imposing a land tax upon the
things that are (or from most people's perspective - were) land. I.e. do
minerals cease to be land merely because they are removed from their
original resting place? Surely they continue to be the non-renewable
resource, the fixed quantity amount of 'land' that they were before they
were removed.

So if LVT is viewed as a tax on non-renewable resources (land is such a
non-renewable resource) then should the tax cease to be levied on metals and
the like just because they have been 'moved'?

I recognise that the intrinsic value of the original resource stays the same
whilst the value due to it's 'improvement' (during manufacture) will
increase. I imagine that we wouldn't want to tax the improvement, but we may
wish still to demand a rent on the original unimproved resource!

Then what about 'disappearing' 'land'? For example oil, which is (according
to our definitions) land. It is burnt and the 'land' disappears and can no
longer be taxed (or have rent charged on it). Can a rent on 'land' be
replaced with an original purchase tax? Surely we do not know the correct
value for the purchase tax as we do not know how useful the 'land' would
have been if it had not been consumed but rather kept until a later time?

I recognise that this last point relates to the theory that relates the
purchase (exploitation) tax to the value placed on the resource by the
highest bidder for natural resources (taxation with regards to mineral
rights). Does this method continue to be the best way to tax exploitation of
natural resources? Does it change things if the natural resource disappears
on use or is merely 'improved' and then kept as a LVT liable possession?

I realise that this sounds a bit irrelevant, but I'm not sure that it is.
Take gold hoarding for example - shouldn't gold have LVT applied to it?
Surely it is still 'land', surely it is still part of the commons? When did
a scarce natural resource become private property? Was the privatisation of
that resource fair?

Cheers,

Mark

Ed Dodson responding...
Paul Metz wrote:

In addition I would observe that Chris forgets about the "art of taxation".
The esthetics - and logic - of 'good' taxes are very different from 'bad'
taxes.

It has been said before, but as the question is repeated we should repeat
the answer, until we can refer to a simple good booklet or article.

Ed here:
Here's one offering from the School of Cooperative Individualism library, an
article by former WorldWatch Institute
researcher Alan Durning, titled "After the Deluge: The Changing Worldview"
from 1997.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/durning_worldwatch_essay.html

Durning and Yoram Bauman co-authored the book "Tax Shift" published by the
Northwest Environment Watch in 1998. This a a book that provides an
excellent primer on on the issues and the benefits of taxing land rent.

FOR these are our mountains – not the Clan Vestey’s
Sunday Herald - Glasgow,Scotland,UK
... As a rough sketch, imagine a yearly tax of £100 an acre being levied
... absentee landlord, and more importantly bring down the market value
of the land to a ...
<http://www.sundayherald.com/43876>

TAX-BREAK veto overturned
Honolulu Advertiser - Honolulu,HI,USA
... Bill 35 allows a tax break for all agricultural land, including any
kept vacant for future development, and Okino said that it would do more
harm than good..
<http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/05/ln/ln01a.html>

LAND prices down for 12th straight year
Japan Today - Tokyo,Japan
... down this year for the 12th straight year, the National Tax Agency
said ... based on Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry appraisals
of land value at about ...
<http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=3&id=307373>

CARY residents wonder if plan will push them out
Raleigh News - Raleigh,NC,USA
... A real estate broker recently bought a bungalow on East Johnson Street
that is valued on county tax rolls at $48,000. ... If anything, the land
value in the ...
<http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1491501p-7644830c.html>

LAND Conservation Incentives Report Suggests Ending Tax Breaks
Suffolk Life Newspapers - Riverhead,NY,USA
... by Congress¹s Joint Committee on Taxation, is part ... title fees
to save parcels of land from development. ... or title fees for less than
market value are eligible ...
<http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14506007&BRD=1776&PAG=461&dept_id=636\
5&rfi=6>

EASING land acquisition
Jakarta Post - Jakarta,Indonesia
... annually revise the taxable value of land ... a recommendation from
the National Land Agency head ... strengthen legal certainty, simplify
taxation procedures, improve ...
<http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20050511.E01&irec=0>

EVADERS of property tax beware of GIS
Newindpress - Chennai,India
HYDERABAD: Evaders of property tax beware! ... The GIS database of property
tax helps the officials in better management of tax collection. ...
<http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEA20050506025431&Page=A&Title=Sout
hern+News+-+Andhra+Pradesh&Topic=0>

PROPERTY tax hikes urged
International Herald Tribune - France
A panel of the president's economic advisers announced yesterday that it
will advocate a steep increase in property and capital gains taxes, among
other ...
<http://www.iht.com/getina/files/244285.html>

OPPOSITION blasts land tax reform
Melbourne Herald Sun - Melbourne,Australia
THE Bracks Government's land tax changes are a con that will see people's
bills soar higher next year than they were last year, the State Opposition
says. ...
<http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15193552%255E2862,00.
html>

TOWNSHIPS pursue using taxes to preserve open space
Chester Daily Local Online - Chester,PA,USA
... preservation that they feel will be of value to the ... Desirable
farmland
is also desirable residential land.". ... They?re opposed to taxation,"
he said, pointing out ...
<http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?

WEB extra: How home assessments have changed through the years
DesMoinesRegister.com - Des Moines,IA,USA
... Robert Ray to show their displeasure with the "unfair taxation.". ...
It is this number that is multiplied by the value of the land and building
to determine the ...
<http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050507/NEWS/50506011/
1001/NEWS>

NAPOLITANO and Legislature reach budget compromise
Arizona Daily Sun - Flagstaff,AZ,USA
... term is generally defined to mean the market value. ... is not fair,
pointing out that residential land and buildings ... of homeowners is
exempt from taxation entirely ...
<http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=108063>

LAND administration
The New Nation - Bangladesh
... of criminals. Land reform is a very good initiative of the government
for its apparent multifaceted effects on the society. It will ...
<http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_18217.shtml>

INSIDE BUSINESS
Newsday - Long Island,NY,USA
... courts exert ultimate control over the value of property through
restrictive
zoning, confiscatory taxation, open space ... their feet on potential
land sales while ...
<http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcol4248948may08,0,958807.story?coll=ny-bus
iness-headlines>

HALF of Brazilian March for Land Reform Completed
Prensa Latina - Havana,Cuba
... on Sunday on the Goiania-Brasilia road, as thousands of men, women
and children completed half of their 180-mile journey in the ´National
March for Land Reform ...
<http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BF12DE0AA-43F8-4F5E-9910-67E8BE22D568
%7D&language=EN>

WHY the State Celebrates Its Failures
Mises.org - USA
... Ascendancy over waterways, roads, and land ownership--including ...
preserve the realm's present value for heirs ... expenditures and debts
via taxation or government ...
<http://www.mises.org/story/1811>

'LAND reform will increase hunger'
iAfrica.com - Cape Town,South Africa
... statement. The union said it was worried about the subtlety with which
the phrase "land reform" was promoted by most of the media. ...
<http://iafrica.com/news/sa/589245.htm>

SENATE'S tax plan favors the wealthy
Houston Chronicle - Houston,TX,USA
... scheduled to be debated by the full Senate this week, would raise $482
million more in new or higher taxes than it would provide in property
tax relief in 2007 ...
<http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3174415>


THE 250th Anniversary of the Discovery of Economics
Mises.org - USA
... John Law was given carte blanche over French finances, taxation, the
mint ... may be given doublethe intrinsic value, that is twice the value
of the land and the ...
<http://www.mises.org/story/1794>

Ed Dodson responding...
Mark Porthouse wrote (5/18):


If we have a land value tax which taxes land, or rather the unimproved
content of land, then at what point do we stop imposing a land tax upon the
things that are (or from most people's perspective - were) land. I.e. do
minerals cease to be land merely because they are removed from their
original resting place? Surely they continue to be the non-renewable
resource, the fixed quantity amount of 'land' that they were before they
were removed.

Ed Dodson here:
History reveals clearly that the rental value of locations changes over
time. Land long used for agriculture becomes more valuable in the market
when minerals are found beneath the surface. Or, agricultural land used for
subsistence farming becomes more valuable because of changes in potential to
achieve greater revenue for unit of land due to technological improvements
or a shift to commercial scale production.

More recently, cities have sprawled because of rail and highway construction
and extension of other "urban" infrastructure into what had been the
countryside.

At the other end of the development pattern, industrial towns decline and
are even abandoned when their reason for being disappears. Land values into
those towns skyrocket during the boom years, then collapse. However, it is
also the case that once the former industrial-use land is cleared of
warehouses, rusting machinery and whatever chemical pollution is left
behind, "the community" may develop along another line -- taking advantage
of access to waterfront to promote tourism and leisure activities, etc.

The key to just public policy is to monitor the land market and adjust
annual taxes on rental values accordingly (as they rise and fall).

Quoting Ed Dodson on Sat, 21 May 2005 19:38:40 -0400:

___Mark Porthouse(5/18)___
If we have a land value tax which taxes land, or rather the unimproved
content of land, then at what point do we stop imposing a land tax upon
the things that are (or from most people's perspective - were) land. I.e.
do minerals cease to be land merely because they are removed from their
original resting place? Surely they continue to be the non-renewable
resource, the fixed quantity amount of 'land' that they were before they
were removed.

___Ed(5/21)___
History reveals clearly that the rental value of locations changes over
time. Land long used for agriculture becomes more valuable in the market
when minerals are found beneath the surface. Or, agricultural land used for
subsistence farming becomes more valuable because of changes in potential to
achieve greater revenue for unit of land due to technological improvements
or a shift to commercial scale production.
...
industrial towns decline and are even abandoned when their reason for being
disappears. Land values into those towns skyrocket during the boom years,
then collapse.
...
The key to just public policy is to monitor the land market and adjust
annual taxes on rental values accordingly (as they rise and fall).
-----

Rent is a flow; i.e. a time derivative of goods. Minerals are simply goods.
Thus, once justly acquired, they should be considered property rather than
leaseholds. Nevertheless, there is an indirect rental effect of mining.
Locations conveniently proximate to the orebody acquire a temporary rental
value as sites for processing, dwellings, and business establishments
offering services to miners, but only during the extraction period. The ore
and its derived mineral commodities would more properly be charged severance
fees than rent. (How the severance fee should be set, and disposition of it
as well as associated rents, constitute rather large, and even on this
list, potentially controversial topics.) Even agricultural land involves
extraction; not only the obvious minerals which crop plants take up, but
also the hydrogen the sun fuses to helium, used both directly on site to
power photosynthesis, and also the rainwater powered by absorption at sea
to cause evaporation. While granted the timescale may well exceed that
humans commonly contemplate (billions of years; keeping land above sealevel
also involves "extraction" of heat from radionuclides powering plate
tectonics), the rent must nevertheless be viewed as a flow rather than a
recurring fee for holding a static resource.

Shavua tov,
Scott

Remember a couple of weeks ago I sent something to the Oxford Times and
copied it here (reproduced right at the bottom of this to remind you
anyway).  Well this Friday there was a reply from the original
correspondent, which I've typed up and reproduce in the middle below.
So I thought I would let you all see the reply and my response, which I
hope they will print this week coming:

My latest reply (some of you might recognise some of the wording..:):

> Sir – Here’s an example illustrating how Land Value Tax would do
> better than Council Tax at promoting efficient use of land (“Reducing
> Waste”, 20th May).
>
> Three “sites”, each of just under a hectare, sit adjacent to each
> other off Middle Way in Summertown.  First, a rare remaining Victorian
> villa, once outside the city and still set in its own extensive
> grounds, sold a few years ago for £3.6 million.
>
> Second, the former Bishop Kirk School.  Idle for a decade, recently
> developed at 25 dwellings per hectare density, the properties sold, in
> total, for about £9.5 million.
>
> The third is made up of terraces and a block of flats in Osberton
> Road.  At 88 dwellings per hectare, it has a conservative property
> value of £11 million.
>
> The villa theoretically pays just £2,600 Council Tax annually.  The
> second site, much less than half the density of the third, pays
> £46,000, and the highest density site £96,000.  These represent tax
> “rates” on property values of 0.07%, 0.42% and 0.81% respectively -
> the highest on the most efficient site!
>
> Apart from being appallingly regressive, Council Tax has the opposite
> effect to that Mr Tyce desires.  Under-used sites pay less.  Tax is
> even reduced further when sites lie idle for years as institutional
> landowners make their minds up what to do with them.
>
> Under Land Value Tax, however, these three very similar sites would
> have similar assessed land values, based on optimum capacity agreed
> through the planning process, and incur similar aggregate tax
> liabilities regardless of occupancy.
>
> The villa would cost nearly £50,000 a year to maintain such profligate
> exclusivity whilst Osberton Road’s total tax would likely fall,
> rewarding its ultra-efficient land use.
>
> Even more impressively, shifting to Land Value Tax also:
> • Rewards work and enterprise, reducing and replacing income,
> investment, sales and corporation taxes.
> • Simplifies the tax regime, is cheaper to administer & impossible to
> avoid.
> • Stabilizes property prices, makes and keeps housing affordable and
> reduces public and private debt levels.
> • Evens out regional prosperity, investment and regeneration.
>
> Finally, though, I can’t help but be surprised that Michael Tyce seems
> to rubbish one who is clearly his ally in seeking solutions to housing
> needs without encroaching on our countryside.  But at least under Land
> Value Tax there will still be trees for me to bark up! (387 words).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jock Coats,
> Wardens’ Lodgings, Morrell Hall, OX3 0TU
> Tel: 07769 695767
> e-mail: jock.coats@...

Incidentally it is a bit of a tribute to the amount of information
available cheaply and easily that I was able to put these figures
together.  From websites offering searchable databases of all the
transactions on a property in the last five years, through council tax
bandings and valuations, and even ownership details of the underused
site from the land registry for four quid.

It was in response to:

>> Sir – I am afraid that Jock Coats’s offer of a land tax, on top of
>> his local income tax, as a replacement for council tax did not as he
>> hoped cheer me up at all.
>>
>> As far as I am aware, land has rarely harmed the environment, or has
>> been a conspicuous consumer of irreplaceable resources, or fossil
>> fuels, but the occupation of buildings, which the council tax
>> addresses, certainly has.
>>
>> The effect of taxes on houses is that they encourage people to occupy
>> buildings in line with their needs rather than their aspirations, and
>> to share dwellings rather than form new units.  The council tax does
>> just that and into the bargain encourages smaller dwellings at
>> greater densities and reduces the danger of development incursions on
>> to green fields and the Green Belt.
>>
>> Replacing income tax with targeted taxes on consumption like council
>> tax – would benefit us all because consumptions taxes are incurred
>> only when the consumption occurs, and directly act to reduce waste of
>> resources in all its forms; and reducing income tax would leave wage
>> earners with discretion in how they spend, or save, the money they
>> earn.
>>
>> Mr Coats and his economic reform group are barking up two wrong trees
>> I am afraid.
>>
>> Michael Tyce, Waterstock

A reminder of my original letter:

>>> Dear Sir,
>>>
>>> I write with both bad and good news for Michael Tyce (“Switching
>>> Taxes”, 29th April).
>>>
>>> First, the bad; Council Tax does not encourage efficient land use,
>>> nor the earlier rates system.  Because they tax the value of both
>>> land and buildings on a site, if you increase the density – the
>>> value of the buildings – the tax increases.
>>>
>>> The good news is that in Oxfordshire, there is multi-party support
>>> for a system that will do exactly what Mr Tyce wants a property tax
>>> to do; help solve Oxfordshire’s housing needs through more efficient
>>> use of land, whilst avoiding sprawl.
>>>
>>> Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties on the county council support Land
>>> Value Tax.  For the Greens, it is manifesto policy to replace
>>> Council Tax.  It is the Lib Dems’ proposed replacement for Uniform
>>> Business Rates, accounting for the bigger proportion of local
>>> government tax receipts.  The Labour Land Campaign has the ear of
>>> the Treasury as they review local government funding.
>>>
>>> With the Vale of White Horse District Council they recently
>>> completed a pilot proving statistically that LVT can lessen the
>>> burden on those hardest hit by Council Tax and Uniform Business
>>> Rate.  Lack of this proof is partly why Lib Dems nationally opted
>>> for Local Income Tax, and I hope we can persuade them to adopt LVT
>>> for both when next they review local government policy.
>>>
>>> LVT differs from Council Tax in one important respect – it is levied
>>> only on the value of land on a site, not the buildings.  Within
>>> planning constraints, increasing building densities will not
>>> increase the tax due, while underutilization is relatively
>>> penalised.
>>>
>>> Disappointingly the Conservatives do not seem to support LVT.
>>> Perplexingly too, since it the “least bad tax” to the free market
>>> economists they seem to adore otherwise – like Adam Smith and Milton
>>> Friedman.  Winston Churchill was a vocal supporter.  It would
>>> substantially help resolve their dilemma of how to accommodate more
>>> households without using more land.  To mis-quote Leo Tolstoy,
>>> “People do not argue with Land Value Tax, they simply do not know
>>> about it.”
>>>
>>> We would love Oxfordshire to trail-blaze a full pilot with all-party
>>> support, but at least I hope Mr Tyce is reassured that groups are
>>> actively campaigning for Oxfordshire to lead the way with an
>>> efficient land tax.
>>> (381 words)
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Jock Coats,
>>> Wardens’ Lodgings, Morrell Hall, OX3 0TU
>>> Tel: 07769 695767
>>> e-mail: jock.coats@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Ed here:
> Yes, minerals, once extracted, should be treated as legitimate private
> property and the market value thereof exempted from the tax base.

> Scott:
> Minerals are simply goods.
> Thus, once justly acquired, they should be considered property rather
> than leaseholds.
> The ore
> and its derived mineral commodities would more properly be
> charged severance
> fees than rent.

I note from the replies that people are stating that goods should be
considered property, but I'm seeing no reasoning for it. As far as I can
tell the reasons for treating goods as property are:
1) They are largely (but not entirely) 'improvements'.
2) It is easier to charge a rent on an area of land with mineral extraction
rights and not to pursue rent on the extracted minerals.

Reasons why minerals should be considered to be society's property (if only
in part):
1) Minerals (in any form) are 'land' - they are part of the common
inheritance of mankind. One man cannot appropriate what is rightly common.
2) Minerals are a limited resource - note that recycled materials are
becoming worth more and more. Here is a quote from New Scientist ( 07 May
2005) "In 1800, for example, a typical copper ore contained more than 10 per
cent metal. By 2000 that had dropped to less than 1 per cent." If extracted
minerals (as goods) cause an LVT liability then they will be used more
diligently. Also, society will continue to benefit from people's use of
society's 'property'.

Now whilst the philosophy seems to back an LVT on extracted mineral goods,
the pragmatic issues (how on earth do you charge such a rent) do not!

What are *your* reasons (as individuals) for not pursuing rent on mineral
goods?

Are their any minerals that, once goods, *should* have incur rent? Perhaps
rare materials with a high benefit?

As with some forms of LVT on land, should rent only be charged on quantities
beyond a certain size?

In New Scientist (21 December 2002) there was an article about our supply of
helium running out:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg17623746.200 (you can read the
beginning of the article)
An extraction tax with a longer term view of usage would help ease the
situation, but would their be any benefit in continuing to treat that helium
(after extraction) as a commons?

Are we merely too soon in history to contemplate a need to treat extracted
minerals as commons? Will this only become more relevant when further
scarcity causes us to question why person x has a right over a piece of
nature and person y does not?

Cheers,

Mark

Ed Dodson responding...
Scott wrote:

Rent is a flow; i.e. a time derivative of goods. Minerals are simply goods.
Thus, once justly acquired, they should be considered property rather than
leaseholds.

Ed here:
Yes, minerals, once extracted, should be treated as legitimate private
property and the market value thereof exempted from the tax base. However,
the rental value of a particular location is not necessarily collected in
cash by the deed holder. The rental value may be imputed to the holder if
the location is held idle (i.e., not leased to another party for extraction
of the minerals, if mineral-laden land). The extracted minerals are by
definition not "leaseholds"; one can hold a leasehold interest in the
location that permits extraction of whatever minerals are found. Obviously,
if the terms of the leasehold prohibited extraction of minerals, then the
highest and best use of the location is artificially changed. Laws that
protect residential areas from subsurface mininng activity have a similar
effect (although residential use of the surface land, except in a rural
location, is more likely to be its highest and best use.

Scott wrote:
  Nevertheless, there is an indirect rental effect of mining.
Locations conveniently proximate to the orebody acquire a temporary rental
value as sites for processing, dwellings, and business establishments
offering services to miners, but only during the extraction period. The ore
and its derived mineral commodities would more properly be charged severance
fees than rent. (How the severance fee should be set, and disposition of it
as well as associated rents, constitute rather large, and even on this
list, potentially controversial topics.) Even agricultural land involves
extraction; not only the obvious minerals which crop plants take up, but
also the hydrogen the sun fuses to helium, used both directly on site to
power photosynthesis, and also the rainwater powered by absorption at sea
to cause evaporation.

Ed here:
These are technical challenges to accurate valuation; however, if there is
sufficient market data to review, assessors/appraisers should be able to
determine what the current market rental value is for land that has
experienced extraction of some portion of the underlying minerals and of
agricultural land that has experienced loss of its natural fertility. The
market data I am speaking of would be available if users are engaging in
competitive bidding for leaseholds to land. Their expertise in evaluating
the potential productivity of a given location is what enables them to
acquire land, employ labor and capital goods, produce a good and then sell
that good at a profit.

Scott wrote:
While granted the timescale may well exceed that
humans commonly contemplate (billions of years; keeping land above sealevel
also involves "extraction" of heat from radionuclides powering plate
tectonics), the rent must nevertheless be viewed as a flow rather than a
recurring fee for holding a static resource.

Ed here:
The distinction we need to keep in mind is between the classical view of
"rent"  -- as that portion of wealth produced that rightfully belongs to the
community because the site owner/controller experiences advantage in the
potential productivity of the site controlled over sites controlled by
others -- and the monetary payment to the community equivalent to the
expected production of wealth that will occur once control of the site is
secured. Is this what you are getting at, or have I misunderstood your
intent?

It seems to me that a community charge on extracted minerals would be
uneccessary to ensure highest and best use, or rather that the free market
(as we see it) would efficiently allocate such wealth.  A man with a
valuable store of refined metal does not gain by holding it idle (like he
could with 'land'), he must pay to store, protect, and secure his wealth,
and he endures an opportunity cost for not using it well.  His holding of
such metal does not prevent others from owning other metal that was just as
good, and just as useful.

>From: "Mark Porthouse" <lists1@...>
>To: Land Café <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: RE: [LandCafe] When Does Land Stop Being Land?
>Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 09:32:35 +0100
>
> > Ed here:
> > Yes, minerals, once extracted, should be treated as legitimate private
> > property and the market value thereof exempted from the tax base.
>
> > Scott:
> > Minerals are simply goods.
> > Thus, once justly acquired, they should be considered property rather
> > than leaseholds.
> > The ore
> > and its derived mineral commodities would more properly be
> > charged severance
> > fees than rent.
>
>I note from the replies that people are stating that goods should be
>considered property, but I'm seeing no reasoning for it. As far as I can
>tell the reasons for treating goods as property are:
>1) They are largely (but not entirely) 'improvements'.
>2) It is easier to charge a rent on an area of land with mineral extraction
>rights and not to pursue rent on the extracted minerals.
>
>Reasons why minerals should be considered to be society's property (if only
>in part):
>1) Minerals (in any form) are 'land' - they are part of the common
>inheritance of mankind. One man cannot appropriate what is rightly common.
>2) Minerals are a limited resource - note that recycled materials are
>becoming worth more and more. Here is a quote from New Scientist ( 07 May
>2005) "In 1800, for example, a typical copper ore contained more than 10
>per
>cent metal. By 2000 that had dropped to less than 1 per cent." If extracted
>minerals (as goods) cause an LVT liability then they will be used more
>diligently. Also, society will continue to benefit from people's use of
>society's 'property'.
>
>Now whilst the philosophy seems to back an LVT on extracted mineral goods,
>the pragmatic issues (how on earth do you charge such a rent) do not!
>
>What are *your* reasons (as individuals) for not pursuing rent on mineral
>goods?
>
>Are their any minerals that, once goods, *should* have incur rent? Perhaps
>rare materials with a high benefit?
>
>As with some forms of LVT on land, should rent only be charged on
>quantities
>beyond a certain size?
>
>In New Scientist (21 December 2002) there was an article about our supply
>of
>helium running out:
>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg17623746.200 (you can read the
>beginning of the article)
>An extraction tax with a longer term view of usage would help ease the
>situation, but would their be any benefit in continuing to treat that
>helium
>(after extraction) as a commons?
>
>Are we merely too soon in history to contemplate a need to treat extracted
>minerals as commons? Will this only become more relevant when further
>scarcity causes us to question why person x has a right over a piece of
>nature and person y does not?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
>(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
>To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
>To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Who has access to Leonardo Boff ?

Paul Metz

MST and the other humanity that is possible

Leonardo Boff,

Theologian

ALAI-AMLATINA, Rio de Janeiro.- We all know that The Landless Movement,
(MST), struggles for agrarian reform. To the Movement, the Earth is not only
a means of production, as the capitalist culture would have it, but much
more; the Earth is our Common Home, she is alive, with a unique community
life and we are her daughters and sons with the mission of caring for her,
and liberating her from the devastating consumerist system. That is the
amazing thing. This is their grandest dream, an expression of the new
emerging civilizing paradigm.

The Movement leaves behind the academic speech that is oriented exclusively
towards instrumental-analytic reason, functional to the present form of
production that threatens the common future of the Earth and of Humanity. To
grasp this aspect of the MST and of the Peasant Way is to grasp their
strength to to bring people together in Brazil and in the world as a whole.

They are at the forefront of the alternative vision, which holds that
another form of humanity is possible. With their actions, notwithstanding
the contradictions inherent to a historical process that arise here and
there, they are showing its viability. It is enough to observe, with
watchful eye, what they say, how are they organized and what they do.

The victims of the present order give life to a new dream. Days ago, my
compañera Marcia, who has supported MST since its foundation in the Ronda
Alta-RS camp, and I were able to take part in the march from Goiania to
Brazilia. Those were two days of good fellowship and march with the 12,272
participants. It required much solidarity consciousness, discipline and
sense for the common good for this massive popular process to function, with
more perfection than a school of samba carioca.*

Let's not talk of the punctual meal time, of the assembly and dismantling of
the tents, of the abundant drinking water and sanitary services. The
ecological preoccupation was almost obsessive. If someone, the next day, had
wanted to know where those thousands of people had camped, it would have
been impossible to tell: the cleanliness was so meticulous that not even a
scrap of paper was left behind.

Among the explicit objectives of the march, beyond the agrarian reform and
the debate of a popular project for Brazil, was "to develop activities in
solidarity with and to strengthen the struggles and the dreams of the
people." To this end, expositions were transmitted through the internal
radio station, followed by group discussions. I was asked to talk about the
new vision of the Earth and how to take care of her, in light of the
suggestions of The Letter of The Earth. Walking by the groups, I saw the
seriousness of the discussions. But not only that. The march took upon
itself "to rescue and to promote Brazilian culture through songs, poems,
theater and other typical manifestations of the people." When the group from
Parana (more than 800 people) welcomed us, we listened to songs and poems of
rare beauty. One stanza called us to "listen to the harmony of equality of
the poor." If the system dumbfounds us, through the mass media, with words
such as "wealth, pleasure, accumulation, consumerism," what we could hear
more here was, "solidarity, cooperation, justice, new women and new men...
New Earth." Who is on a better path?

I thought within myself: surely Marx, Lenin and Mao never thought of a
revolution that could make this very happy synthesis of struggle and study,
of walk and feast. A movement that incorporates poetry and music will be
invincible. MST tells us that another world is about to happen. (Translation
from the Portuguese by ALAI)

*samba carioca. Brazilian popular music and dance.

Leonardo Boff,

_______________________________________________________________________

                                               INTEGeR... Consult

  Dr Paul E. Metz, Managing Consultant               Tel:       +31 26 362 04
50
  Stalen Enk 45                                                   Fax:
+31 84 222 41 38
  NL-6881 BN  Velp                                             Email:
metz@...
  The Netherlands                                                URL:
http://www.integer-consult.com

                               Market intelligence for profitable green
business

_______________________________________________________________________




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Sean,

I'm not sure. Purchase prices can be quite a different control mechanism to
rental costs. A purchase price means that the asset will hold value if
stored. Rental costs imply a heavy cost of ownership and therefore acts as
more of a deterrent to unnecessary ownership. Rental cost can mean that
purchase price is zero. We see this with simple LVT.

Cheers,

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Brooks [mailto:seanbrooks@...]
> Sent: 24 May 2005 19:24
> To: lists1@...
> Subject: RE: [LandCafe] When Does Land Stop Being Land?
>
>
> It seems to me that a community charge on extracted minerals would be
> uneccessary to ensure highest and best use, or rather that the
> free market
> (as we see it) would efficiently allocate such wealth.  A man with a
> valuable store of refined metal does not gain by holding it idle (like he
> could with 'land'), he must pay to store, protect, and secure his wealth,
> and he endures an opportunity cost for not using it well.  His holding of
> such metal does not prevent others from owning other metal that
> was just as
> good, and just as useful.
>
> >From: "Mark Porthouse" <lists1@...>
> >To: Land Café <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
> >Subject: RE: [LandCafe] When Does Land Stop Being Land?
> >Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 09:32:35 +0100
> >
> > > Ed here:
> > > Yes, minerals, once extracted, should be treated as legitimate private
> > > property and the market value thereof exempted from the tax base.
> >
> > > Scott:
> > > Minerals are simply goods.
> > > Thus, once justly acquired, they should be considered property rather
> > > than leaseholds.
> > > The ore
> > > and its derived mineral commodities would more properly be
> > > charged severance
> > > fees than rent.
> >
> >I note from the replies that people are stating that goods should be
> >considered property, but I'm seeing no reasoning for it. As far as I can
> >tell the reasons for treating goods as property are:
> >1) They are largely (but not entirely) 'improvements'.
> >2) It is easier to charge a rent on an area of land with mineral
> extraction
> >rights and not to pursue rent on the extracted minerals.
> >
> >Reasons why minerals should be considered to be society's
> property (if only
> >in part):
> >1) Minerals (in any form) are 'land' - they are part of the common
> >inheritance of mankind. One man cannot appropriate what is
> rightly common.
> >2) Minerals are a limited resource - note that recycled materials are
> >becoming worth more and more. Here is a quote from New Scientist ( 07 May
> >2005) "In 1800, for example, a typical copper ore contained more than 10
> >per
> >cent metal. By 2000 that had dropped to less than 1 per cent."
> If extracted
> >minerals (as goods) cause an LVT liability then they will be used more
> >diligently. Also, society will continue to benefit from people's use of
> >society's 'property'.
> >
> >Now whilst the philosophy seems to back an LVT on extracted
> mineral goods,
> >the pragmatic issues (how on earth do you charge such a rent) do not!
> >
> >What are *your* reasons (as individuals) for not pursuing rent on mineral
> >goods?
> >
> >Are their any minerals that, once goods, *should* have incur
> rent? Perhaps
> >rare materials with a high benefit?
> >
> >As with some forms of LVT on land, should rent only be charged on
> >quantities
> >beyond a certain size?
> >
> >In New Scientist (21 December 2002) there was an article about
> our supply
> >of
> >helium running out:
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg17623746.200 (you
> can read the
> >beginning of the article)
> >An extraction tax with a longer term view of usage would help ease the
> >situation, but would their be any benefit in continuing to treat that
> >helium
> >(after extraction) as a commons?
> >
> >Are we merely too soon in history to contemplate a need to treat
> extracted
> >minerals as commons? Will this only become more relevant when further
> >scarcity causes us to question why person x has a right over a piece of
> >nature and person y does not?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Lawrence [mailto:T.Lawrence@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:15 PM
Subject: Land Value Tax: Worth the Transition?



Dear colleague

We would be delighted if you could join us on 10 June for a seminar with
academics, policy makers and business stakeholders. "Land Value Tax: Worth
the transition?" will examine the economic and political case for shifting
to a land value tax, and look at ways to overcome the problems of
implementation. Full details are in the flyer attached.Please feel free to
pass on to interested colleagues. Places are limited so please reply to this
email to confirm your place.

Best wishes

Tim Lawrence

institute for public policy research
30 - 32 Southampton Street
Covent Garden
London
WC2E 7RA

D. 020 7470 6176
M. 07813 870198






********************************************************************************\
***
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as
to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached
transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you
have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses.
********************************************************************************\
***



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear All

Jock Coates explanation of the different effect of LVT and Council Tax in
Oxford is wonderfully clear.

He also makes reference to the British land planning process in the
following words:


> 'Under Land Value Tax, however, these three very similar sites would
> have similar assessed land values, based on optimum capacity agreed
> through the planning process, and incur similar aggregate tax
> liabilities regardless of occupancy.'

As the Hon Sec Planning of the Chelsea Society (among other things) I am
constantly examining local development applications in the light of the
Mayor's Plan for London and the Borough Council's Unitary Development Plan.
As drafted and enforced these plans, for instance, make it possible for the
Royal Hospital Chelsea, with its extensive park to pay a Council Tax that
grossly undervalues its site. If it was taxed, through LVT, at a value that
represented the development value of the park, the Hospital would probably
have to sell off most of the park for development. (It might have to close
down altogether because of the very generous spaces that are present in Sir
Christopher Wren palatial buildings.) Pensioners and residents who enjoy the
'lung', the amenity or however one might describe it, of the park (and the
historic architecture of the pensioners; quarters) would then lose assets
and inner city living would be by that much diminished.

I can see a development plans under LVT protecting open spaces from
development but, if they were in private ownership, how might they be
protected from tax designed to ensure their more intensive development.
Would development plans incorporate new 'tax holiday' status for open land
or buildings that communities wanted to protect? Or do those of who live in
dense inner cities, where values are high, have to accept ever high
densities?

Regards

Terence Bendixson, Secretary
Independent Transport Commission
University of Southampton
c/o 39 Elm Park Gardens, London SW10 9QF
Tel 020 7352 3885



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jock Coats" <jock.coats@...>
To: "Land Café" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:02 AM
Subject: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies


Remember a couple of weeks ago I sent something to the Oxford Times and
copied it here (reproduced right at the bottom of this to remind you
anyway).  Well this Friday there was a reply from the original
correspondent, which I've typed up and reproduce in the middle below.
So I thought I would let you all see the reply and my response, which I
hope they will print this week coming:

My latest reply (some of you might recognise some of the wording..:):

> Sir - Here's an example illustrating how Land Value Tax would do
> better than Council Tax at promoting efficient use of land ("Reducing
> Waste", 20th May).
>
> Three "sites", each of just under a hectare, sit adjacent to each
> other off Middle Way in Summertown.  First, a rare remaining Victorian
> villa, once outside the city and still set in its own extensive
> grounds, sold a few years ago for £3.6 million.
>
> Second, the former Bishop Kirk School.  Idle for a decade, recently
> developed at 25 dwellings per hectare density, the properties sold, in
> total, for about £9.5 million.
>
> The third is made up of terraces and a block of flats in Osberton
> Road.  At 88 dwellings per hectare, it has a conservative property
> value of £11 million.
>
> The villa theoretically pays just £2,600 Council Tax annually.  The
> second site, much less than half the density of the third, pays
> £46,000, and the highest density site £96,000.  These represent tax
> "rates" on property values of 0.07%, 0.42% and 0.81% respectively -
> the highest on the most efficient site!
>
> Apart from being appallingly regressive, Council Tax has the opposite
> effect to that Mr Tyce desires.  Under-used sites pay less.  Tax is
> even reduced further when sites lie idle for years as institutional
> landowners make their minds up what to do with them.
>
> Under Land Value Tax, however, these three very similar sites would
> have similar assessed land values, based on optimum capacity agreed
> through the planning process, and incur similar aggregate tax
> liabilities regardless of occupancy.
>
> The villa would cost nearly £50,000 a year to maintain such profligate
> exclusivity whilst Osberton Road's total tax would likely fall,
> rewarding its ultra-efficient land use.
>
> Even more impressively, shifting to Land Value Tax also:
> . Rewards work and enterprise, reducing and replacing income,
> investment, sales and corporation taxes.
> . Simplifies the tax regime, is cheaper to administer & impossible to
> avoid.
> . Stabilizes property prices, makes and keeps housing affordable and
> reduces public and private debt levels.
> . Evens out regional prosperity, investment and regeneration.
>
> Finally, though, I can't help but be surprised that Michael Tyce seems
> to rubbish one who is clearly his ally in seeking solutions to housing
> needs without encroaching on our countryside.  But at least under Land
> Value Tax there will still be trees for me to bark up! (387 words).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jock Coats,
> Wardens' Lodgings, Morrell Hall, OX3 0TU
> Tel: 07769 695767
> e-mail: jock.coats@...

Incidentally it is a bit of a tribute to the amount of information
available cheaply and easily that I was able to put these figures
together.  From websites offering searchable databases of all the
transactions on a property in the last five years, through council tax
bandings and valuations, and even ownership details of the underused
site from the land registry for four quid.

It was in response to:

>> Sir - I am afraid that Jock Coats's offer of a land tax, on top of
>> his local income tax, as a replacement for council tax did not as he
>> hoped cheer me up at all.
>>
>> As far as I am aware, land has rarely harmed the environment, or has
>> been a conspicuous consumer of irreplaceable resources, or fossil
>> fuels, but the occupation of buildings, which the council tax
>> addresses, certainly has.
>>
>> The effect of taxes on houses is that they encourage people to occupy
>> buildings in line with their needs rather than their aspirations, and
>> to share dwellings rather than form new units.  The council tax does
>> just that and into the bargain encourages smaller dwellings at
>> greater densities and reduces the danger of development incursions on
>> to green fields and the Green Belt.
>>
>> Replacing income tax with targeted taxes on consumption like council
>> tax - would benefit us all because consumptions taxes are incurred
>> only when the consumption occurs, and directly act to reduce waste of
>> resources in all its forms; and reducing income tax would leave wage
>> earners with discretion in how they spend, or save, the money they
>> earn.
>>
>> Mr Coats and his economic reform group are barking up two wrong trees
>> I am afraid.
>>
>> Michael Tyce, Waterstock

A reminder of my original letter:

>>> Dear Sir,
>>>
>>> I write with both bad and good news for Michael Tyce ("Switching
>>> Taxes", 29th April).
>>>
>>> First, the bad; Council Tax does not encourage efficient land use,
>>> nor the earlier rates system.  Because they tax the value of both
>>> land and buildings on a site, if you increase the density - the
>>> value of the buildings - the tax increases.
>>>
>>> The good news is that in Oxfordshire, there is multi-party support
>>> for a system that will do exactly what Mr Tyce wants a property tax
>>> to do; help solve Oxfordshire's housing needs through more efficient
>>> use of land, whilst avoiding sprawl.
>>>
>>> Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties on the county council support Land
>>> Value Tax.  For the Greens, it is manifesto policy to replace
>>> Council Tax.  It is the Lib Dems' proposed replacement for Uniform
>>> Business Rates, accounting for the bigger proportion of local
>>> government tax receipts.  The Labour Land Campaign has the ear of
>>> the Treasury as they review local government funding.
>>>
>>> With the Vale of White Horse District Council they recently
>>> completed a pilot proving statistically that LVT can lessen the
>>> burden on those hardest hit by Council Tax and Uniform Business
>>> Rate.  Lack of this proof is partly why Lib Dems nationally opted
>>> for Local Income Tax, and I hope we can persuade them to adopt LVT
>>> for both when next they review local government policy.
>>>
>>> LVT differs from Council Tax in one important respect - it is levied
>>> only on the value of land on a site, not the buildings.  Within
>>> planning constraints, increasing building densities will not
>>> increase the tax due, while underutilization is relatively
>>> penalised.
>>>
>>> Disappointingly the Conservatives do not seem to support LVT.
>>> Perplexingly too, since it the "least bad tax" to the free market
>>> economists they seem to adore otherwise - like Adam Smith and Milton
>>> Friedman.  Winston Churchill was a vocal supporter.  It would
>>> substantially help resolve their dilemma of how to accommodate more
>>> households without using more land.  To mis-quote Leo Tolstoy,
>>> "People do not argue with Land Value Tax, they simply do not know
>>> about it."
>>>
>>> We would love Oxfordshire to trail-blaze a full pilot with all-party
>>> support, but at least I hope Mr Tyce is reassured that groups are
>>> actively campaigning for Oxfordshire to lead the way with an
>>> efficient land tax.
>>> (381 words)
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Jock Coats,
>>> Wardens' Lodgings, Morrell Hall, OX3 0TU
>>> Tel: 07769 695767
>>> e-mail: jock.coats@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

Funny you should come up with that particular objection.  I also sent a
copy of this to the various local councillors with whom I had had a
discussion on this when the site had come up for planning permission.
And writing the letter had made me think through the process and how it
might be addressed and I think it's surprisingly elegant actually.

And sure enough, my former colleague on the planning committee raised
this very objection too.

I see the Land Value Tax as actually helping with conservation issues
as they will concentrate minds on both the benefits and the *costs* of
conservation and, perhaps just as importantly, *who benefits* from
conservation.

In the example in my letter, it is true that the villa site is arguably
worth conserving in some capacity - whether that's the house only or
the garden or some special ambiance that could be maintained with some
lower density development or some other 'deal' that could be done.  The
market takes care of the rest.  As noted, the villa was sold for £3.6
million.  That's about half the land value of the other 'sites'.  So
the hope value of development is low.  You might be paying a high
annual tax, but you're getting seven millions worth of land for three
and a half with a whopping great house thrown in.  In a world where LVT
was the only personal and business tax, there are all sorts of people
who might then be able to afford those high rates.

But if you get to the extent that the site could not sell at *any*
discount because of the high tax then the community, in some form or
another, perhaps a local conservation trust, English Heritage or the
like, could effectively help pay for the tax, taking some kind of
public interest in the property as they do so.  Funnily enough, this
has happened before - with the National Trust mitigating inheritance
taxes.

LVT could revolutionize conservation area planning and management and
give real control to local groups and bargaining power across
districts.

This site is just the sort of site in North Oxford that you'd expect a
big pressure group of largely upper-middle class locals to get up a
campaign to save.  Maybe these sorts of things as aspirational icons
for them!  But because sites like this get protected in North Oxford
pressure for infilling is piled more in East Oxford.  But if that site
is important only in a local context of North Oxford, why the heck
should the residents of East Oxford bear the cost, whilst the real
beneficiaries of the conservation exercise are the land value in North
Oxford?

Very elegant indeed!

Jock

On 28 May 2005, at 12:53, Terence Bendixson wrote:

> Dear All
>
> Jock Coates explanation of the different effect of LVT and Council Tax
> in
> Oxford is wonderfully clear.
>
> He also makes reference to the British land planning process in the
> following words:
>
>
>> 'Under Land Value Tax, however, these three very similar sites would
>> have similar assessed land values, based on optimum capacity agreed
>> through the planning process, and incur similar aggregate tax
>> liabilities regardless of occupancy.'
>
> As the Hon Sec Planning of the Chelsea Society (among other things) I
> am
> constantly examining local development applications in the light of the
> Mayor's Plan for London and the Borough Council's Unitary Development
> Plan.
> As drafted and enforced these plans, for instance, make it possible
> for the
> Royal Hospital Chelsea, with its extensive park to pay a Council Tax
> that
> grossly undervalues its site. If it was taxed, through LVT, at a value
> that
> represented the development value of the park, the Hospital would
> probably
> have to sell off most of the park for development. (It might have to
> close
> down altogether because of the very generous spaces that are present
> in Sir
> Christopher Wren palatial buildings.) Pensioners and residents who
> enjoy the
> 'lung', the amenity or however one might describe it, of the park (and
> the
> historic architecture of the pensioners; quarters) would then lose
> assets
> and inner city living would be by that much diminished.
>
> I can see a development plans under LVT protecting open spaces from
> development but, if they were in private ownership, how might they be
> protected from tax designed to ensure their more intensive development.
> Would development plans incorporate new 'tax holiday' status for open
> land
> or buildings that communities wanted to protect? Or do those of who
> live in
> dense inner cities, where values are high, have to accept ever high
> densities?
>
> Regards
>
> Terence Bendixson, Secretary
> Independent Transport Commission
> University of Southampton
> c/o 39 Elm Park Gardens, London SW10 9QF
> Tel 020 7352 3885
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jock Coats" <jock.coats@...>
> To: "Land Café" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:02 AM
> Subject: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies
>
>
> Remember a couple of weeks ago I sent something to the Oxford Times and
> copied it here (reproduced right at the bottom of this to remind you
> anyway).  Well this Friday there was a reply from the original
> correspondent, which I've typed up and reproduce in the middle below.
> So I thought I would let you all see the reply and my response, which I
> hope they will print this week coming:
>
> My latest reply (some of you might recognise some of the wording..:):
>
>> Sir - Here's an example illustrating how Land Value Tax would do
>> better than Council Tax at promoting efficient use of land ("Reducing
>> Waste", 20th May).
>>
>> Three "sites", each of just under a hectare, sit adjacent to each
>> other off Middle Way in Summertown.  First, a rare remaining Victorian
>> villa, once outside the city and still set in its own extensive
>> grounds, sold a few years ago for £3.6 million.
>>
>> Second, the former Bishop Kirk School.  Idle for a decade, recently
>> developed at 25 dwellings per hectare density, the properties sold, in
>> total, for about £9.5 million.
>>
>> The third is made up of terraces and a block of flats in Osberton
>> Road.  At 88 dwellings per hectare, it has a conservative property
>> value of £11 million.
>>
>> The villa theoretically pays just £2,600 Council Tax annually.  The
>> second site, much less than half the density of the third, pays
>> £46,000, and the highest density site £96,000.  These represent tax
>> "rates" on property values of 0.07%, 0.42% and 0.81% respectively -
>> the highest on the most efficient site!
>>
>> Apart from being appallingly regressive, Council Tax has the opposite
>> effect to that Mr Tyce desires.  Under-used sites pay less.  Tax is
>> even reduced further when sites lie idle for years as institutional
>> landowners make their minds up what to do with them.
>>
>> Under Land Value Tax, however, these three very similar sites would
>> have similar assessed land values, based on optimum capacity agreed
>> through the planning process, and incur similar aggregate tax
>> liabilities regardless of occupancy.
>>
>> The villa would cost nearly £50,000 a year to maintain such profligate
>> exclusivity whilst Osberton Road's total tax would likely fall,
>> rewarding its ultra-efficient land use.
>>
>> Even more impressively, shifting to Land Value Tax also:
>> . Rewards work and enterprise, reducing and replacing income,
>> investment, sales and corporation taxes.
>> . Simplifies the tax regime, is cheaper to administer & impossible to
>> avoid.
>> . Stabilizes property prices, makes and keeps housing affordable and
>> reduces public and private debt levels.
>> . Evens out regional prosperity, investment and regeneration.
>>
>> Finally, though, I can't help but be surprised that Michael Tyce seems
>> to rubbish one who is clearly his ally in seeking solutions to housing
>> needs without encroaching on our countryside.  But at least under Land
>> Value Tax there will still be trees for me to bark up! (387 words).
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Jock Coats,
>> Wardens' Lodgings, Morrell Hall, OX3 0TU
>> Tel: 07769 695767
>> e-mail: jock.coats@...
>
> Incidentally it is a bit of a tribute to the amount of information
> available cheaply and easily that I was able to put these figures
> together.  From websites offering searchable databases of all the
> transactions on a property in the last five years, through council tax
> bandings and valuations, and even ownership details of the underused
> site from the land registry for four quid.
>
> It was in response to:
>
>>> Sir - I am afraid that Jock Coats's offer of a land tax, on top of
>>> his local income tax, as a replacement for council tax did not as he
>>> hoped cheer me up at all.
>>>
>>> As far as I am aware, land has rarely harmed the environment, or has
>>> been a conspicuous consumer of irreplaceable resources, or fossil
>>> fuels, but the occupation of buildings, which the council tax
>>> addresses, certainly has.
>>>
>>> The effect of taxes on houses is that they encourage people to occupy
>>> buildings in line with their needs rather than their aspirations, and
>>> to share dwellings rather than form new units.  The council tax does
>>> just that and into the bargain encourages smaller dwellings at
>>> greater densities and reduces the danger of development incursions on
>>> to green fields and the Green Belt.
>>>
>>> Replacing income tax with targeted taxes on consumption like council
>>> tax - would benefit us all because consumptions taxes are incurred
>>> only when the consumption occurs, and directly act to reduce waste of
>>> resources in all its forms; and reducing income tax would leave wage
>>> earners with discretion in how they spend, or save, the money they
>>> earn.
>>>
>>> Mr Coats and his economic reform group are barking up two wrong trees
>>> I am afraid.
>>>
>>> Michael Tyce, Waterstock
>
> A reminder of my original letter:
>
>>>> Dear Sir,
>>>>
>>>> I write with both bad and good news for Michael Tyce ("Switching
>>>> Taxes", 29th April).
>>>>
>>>> First, the bad; Council Tax does not encourage efficient land use,
>>>> nor the earlier rates system.  Because they tax the value of both
>>>> land and buildings on a site, if you increase the density - the
>>>> value of the buildings - the tax increases.
>>>>
>>>> The good news is that in Oxfordshire, there is multi-party support
>>>> for a system that will do exactly what Mr Tyce wants a property tax
>>>> to do; help solve Oxfordshire's housing needs through more efficient
>>>> use of land, whilst avoiding sprawl.
>>>>
>>>> Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties on the county council support Land
>>>> Value Tax.  For the Greens, it is manifesto policy to replace
>>>> Council Tax.  It is the Lib Dems' proposed replacement for Uniform
>>>> Business Rates, accounting for the bigger proportion of local
>>>> government tax receipts.  The Labour Land Campaign has the ear of
>>>> the Treasury as they review local government funding.
>>>>
>>>> With the Vale of White Horse District Council they recently
>>>> completed a pilot proving statistically that LVT can lessen the
>>>> burden on those hardest hit by Council Tax and Uniform Business
>>>> Rate.  Lack of this proof is partly why Lib Dems nationally opted
>>>> for Local Income Tax, and I hope we can persuade them to adopt LVT
>>>> for both when next they review local government policy.
>>>>
>>>> LVT differs from Council Tax in one important respect - it is levied
>>>> only on the value of land on a site, not the buildings.  Within
>>>> planning constraints, increasing building densities will not
>>>> increase the tax due, while underutilization is relatively
>>>> penalised.
>>>>
>>>> Disappointingly the Conservatives do not seem to support LVT.
>>>> Perplexingly too, since it the "least bad tax" to the free market
>>>> economists they seem to adore otherwise - like Adam Smith and Milton
>>>> Friedman.  Winston Churchill was a vocal supporter.  It would
>>>> substantially help resolve their dilemma of how to accommodate more
>>>> households without using more land.  To mis-quote Leo Tolstoy,
>>>> "People do not argue with Land Value Tax, they simply do not know
>>>> about it."
>>>>
>>>> We would love Oxfordshire to trail-blaze a full pilot with all-party
>>>> support, but at least I hope Mr Tyce is reassured that groups are
>>>> actively campaigning for Oxfordshire to lead the way with an
>>>> efficient land tax.
>>>> (381 words)
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Jock Coats,
>>>> Wardens' Lodgings, Morrell Hall, OX3 0TU
>>>> Tel: 07769 695767
>>>> e-mail: jock.coats@...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
> (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
> To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
> To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767

Jock

Thanks for your helpful message. So the local planning authority would have
no power to waive LVT in 'special cases'. Quite right too. Think what
corruption that would lead to.

And I take you point completely about LVT making transparent values and
privileges that are now hidden. But what about parks and commons? Would they
be taxed?  Would the local authority pay the tax due from them out of other
LVT revenues? Or would the development plan zone such places as having no
development value?

If the latter is the case and the planning authority had wide powers to zone
for no development, might that deliver the best of both worlds?  It would
take public amenity land out of the market and leave all other sites in. And
it would make it possible to have small parks at epicentres of land values.
Or is that too much interference with the market?

Regards

Terence Bendixson


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jock Coats" <jock.coats@...>
To: "Terence Bendixson" <t.bendixson@...>
Cc: "Land Café" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies


Funny you should come up with that particular objection.  I also sent a
copy of this to the various local councillors with whom I had had a
discussion on this when the site had come up for planning permission.
And writing the letter had made me think through the process and how it
might be addressed and I think it's surprisingly elegant actually.

And sure enough, my former colleague on the planning committee raised
this very objection too.

I see the Land Value Tax as actually helping with conservation issues
as they will concentrate minds on both the benefits and the *costs* of
conservation and, perhaps just as importantly, *who benefits* from
conservation.

In the example in my letter, it is true that the villa site is arguably
worth conserving in some capacity - whether that's the house only or
the garden or some special ambiance that could be maintained with some
lower density development or some other 'deal' that could be done.  The
market takes care of the rest.  As noted, the villa was sold for £3.6
million.  That's about half the land value of the other 'sites'.  So
the hope value of development is low.  You might be paying a high
annual tax, but you're getting seven millions worth of land for three
and a half with a whopping great house thrown in.  In a world where LVT
was the only personal and business tax, there are all sorts of people
who might then be able to afford those high rates.

But if you get to the extent that the site could not sell at *any*
discount because of the high tax then the community, in some form or
another, perhaps a local conservation trust, English Heritage or the
like, could effectively help pay for the tax, taking some kind of
public interest in the property as they do so.  Funnily enough, this
has happened before - with the National Trust mitigating inheritance
taxes.

LVT could revolutionize conservation area planning and management and
give real control to local groups and bargaining power across
districts.

This site is just the sort of site in North Oxford that you'd expect a
big pressure group of largely upper-middle class locals to get up a
campaign to save.  Maybe these sorts of things as aspirational icons
for them!  But because sites like this get protected in North Oxford
pressure for infilling is piled more in East Oxford.  But if that site
is important only in a local context of North Oxford, why the heck
should the residents of East Oxford bear the cost, whilst the real
beneficiaries of the conservation exercise are the land value in North
Oxford?

Very elegant indeed!

Jock

On 28 May 2005, at 12:53, Terence Bendixson wrote:

> Dear All
>
> Jock Coates explanation of the different effect of LVT and Council Tax
> in
> Oxford is wonderfully clear.
>
> He also makes reference to the British land planning process in the
> following words:
>
>
>> 'Under Land Value Tax, however, these three very similar sites would
>> have similar assessed land values, based on optimum capacity agreed
>> through the planning process, and incur similar aggregate tax
>> liabilities regardless of occupancy.'
>
> As the Hon Sec Planning of the Chelsea Society (among other things) I
> am
> constantly examining local development applications in the light of the
> Mayor's Plan for London and the Borough Council's Unitary Development
> Plan.
> As drafted and enforced these plans, for instance, make it possible
> for the
> Royal Hospital Chelsea, with its extensive park to pay a Council Tax
> that
> grossly undervalues its site. If it was taxed, through LVT, at a value
> that
> represented the development value of the park, the Hospital would
> probably
> have to sell off most of the park for development. (It might have to
> close
> down altogether because of the very generous spaces that are present
> in Sir
> Christopher Wren palatial buildings.) Pensioners and residents who
> enjoy the
> 'lung', the amenity or however one might describe it, of the park (and
> the
> historic architecture of the pensioners; quarters) would then lose
> assets
> and inner city living would be by that much diminished.
>
> I can see a development plans under LVT protecting open spaces from
> development but, if they were in private ownership, how might they be
> protected from tax designed to ensure their more intensive development.
> Would development plans incorporate new 'tax holiday' status for open
> land
> or buildings that communities wanted to protect? Or do those of who
> live in
> dense inner cities, where values are high, have to accept ever high
> densities?
>
> Regards
>
> Terence Bendixson, Secretary
> Independent Transport Commission
> University of Southampton
> c/o 39 Elm Park Gardens, London SW10 9QF
> Tel 020 7352 3885
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jock Coats" <jock.coats@...>
> To: "Land Café" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:02 AM
> Subject: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies
>
>
> Remember a couple of weeks ago I sent something to the Oxford Times and
> copied it here (reproduced right at the bottom of this to remind you
> anyway).  Well this Friday there was a reply from the original
> correspondent, which I've typed up and reproduce in the middle below.
> So I thought I would let you all see the reply and my response, which I
> hope they will print this week coming:
>
> My latest reply (some of you might recognise some of the wording..:):
>
>> Sir - Here's an example illustrating how Land Value Tax would do
>> better than Council Tax at promoting efficient use of land ("Reducing
>> Waste", 20th May).
>>
>> Three "sites", each of just under a hectare, sit adjacent to each
>> other off Middle Way in Summertown.  First, a rare remaining Victorian
>> villa, once outside the city and still set in its own extensive
>> grounds, sold a few years ago for £3.6 million.
>>
>> Second, the former Bishop Kirk School.  Idle for a decade, recently
>> developed at 25 dwellings per hectare density, the properties sold, in
>> total, for about £9.5 million.
>>
>> The third is made up of terraces and a block of flats in Osberton
>> Road.  At 88 dwellings per hectare, it has a conservative property
>> value of £11 million.
>>
>> The villa theoretically pays just £2,600 Council Tax annually.  The
>> second site, much less than half the density of the third, pays
>> £46,000, and the highest density site £96,000.  These represent tax
>> "rates" on property values of 0.07%, 0.42% and 0.81% respectively -
>> the highest on the most efficient site!
>>
>> Apart from being appallingly regressive, Council Tax has the opposite
>> effect to that Mr Tyce desires.  Under-used sites pay less.  Tax is
>> even reduced further when sites lie idle for years as institutional
>> landowners make their minds up what to do with them.
>>
>> Under Land Value Tax, however, these three very similar sites would
>> have similar assessed land values, based on optimum capacity agreed
>> through the planning process, and incur similar aggregate tax
>> liabilities regardless of occupancy.
>>
>> The villa would cost nearly £50,000 a year to maintain such profligate
>> exclusivity whilst Osberton Road's total tax would likely fall,
>> rewarding its ultra-efficient land use.
>>
>> Even more impressively, shifting to Land Value Tax also:
>> . Rewards work and enterprise, reducing and replacing income,
>> investment, sales and corporation taxes.
>> . Simplifies the tax regime, is cheaper to administer & impossible to
>> avoid.
>> . Stabilizes property prices, makes and keeps housing affordable and
>> reduces public and private debt levels.
>> . Evens out regional prosperity, investment and regeneration.
>>
>> Finally, though, I can't help but be surprised that Michael Tyce seems
>> to rubbish one who is clearly his ally in seeking solutions to housing
>> needs without encroaching on our countryside.  But at least under Land
>> Value Tax there will still be trees for me to bark up! (387 words).
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Jock Coats,
>> Wardens' Lodgings, Morrell Hall, OX3 0TU
>> Tel: 07769 695767
>> e-mail: jock.coats@...
>
> Incidentally it is a bit of a tribute to the amount of information
> available cheaply and easily that I was able to put these figures
> together.  From websites offering searchable databases of all the
> transactions on a property in the last five years, through council tax
> bandings and valuations, and even ownership details of the underused
> site from the land registry for four quid.
>
> It was in response to:
>
>>> Sir - I am afraid that Jock Coats's offer of a land tax, on top of
>>> his local income tax, as a replacement for council tax did not as he
>>> hoped cheer me up at all.
>>>
>>> As far as I am aware, land has rarely harmed the environment, or has
>>> been a conspicuous consumer of irreplaceable resources, or fossil
>>> fuels, but the occupation of buildings, which the council tax
>>> addresses, certainly has.
>>>
>>> The effect of taxes on houses is that they encourage people to occupy
>>> buildings in line with their needs rather than their aspirations, and
>>> to share dwellings rather than form new units.  The council tax does
>>> just that and into the bargain encourages smaller dwellings at
>>> greater densities and reduces the danger of development incursions on
>>> to green fields and the Green Belt.
>>>
>>> Replacing income tax with targeted taxes on consumption like council
>>> tax - would benefit us all because consumptions taxes are incurred
>>> only when the consumption occurs, and directly act to reduce waste of
>>> resources in all its forms; and reducing income tax would leave wage
>>> earners with discretion in how they spend, or save, the money they
>>> earn.
>>>
>>> Mr Coats and his economic reform group are barking up two wrong trees
>>> I am afraid.
>>>
>>> Michael Tyce, Waterstock
>
> A reminder of my original letter:
>
>>>> Dear Sir,
>>>>
>>>> I write with both bad and good news for Michael Tyce ("Switching
>>>> Taxes", 29th April).
>>>>
>>>> First, the bad; Council Tax does not encourage efficient land use,
>>>> nor the earlier rates system.  Because they tax the value of both
>>>> land and buildings on a site, if you increase the density - the
>>>> value of the buildings - the tax increases.
>>>>
>>>> The good news is that in Oxfordshire, there is multi-party support
>>>> for a system that will do exactly what Mr Tyce wants a property tax
>>>> to do; help solve Oxfordshire's housing needs through more efficient
>>>> use of land, whilst avoiding sprawl.
>>>>
>>>> Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties on the county council support Land
>>>> Value Tax.  For the Greens, it is manifesto policy to replace
>>>> Council Tax.  It is the Lib Dems' proposed replacement for Uniform
>>>> Business Rates, accounting for the bigger proportion of local
>>>> government tax receipts.  The Labour Land Campaign has the ear of
>>>> the Treasury as they review local government funding.
>>>>
>>>> With the Vale of White Horse District Council they recently
>>>> completed a pilot proving statistically that LVT can lessen the
>>>> burden on those hardest hit by Council Tax and Uniform Business
>>>> Rate.  Lack of this proof is partly why Lib Dems nationally opted
>>>> for Local Income Tax, and I hope we can persuade them to adopt LVT
>>>> for both when next they review local government policy.
>>>>
>>>> LVT differs from Council Tax in one important respect - it is levied
>>>> only on the value of land on a site, not the buildings.  Within
>>>> planning constraints, increasing building densities will not
>>>> increase the tax due, while underutilization is relatively
>>>> penalised.
>>>>
>>>> Disappointingly the Conservatives do not seem to support LVT.
>>>> Perplexingly too, since it the "least bad tax" to the free market
>>>> economists they seem to adore otherwise - like Adam Smith and Milton
>>>> Friedman.  Winston Churchill was a vocal supporter.  It would
>>>> substantially help resolve their dilemma of how to accommodate more
>>>> households without using more land.  To mis-quote Leo Tolstoy,
>>>> "People do not argue with Land Value Tax, they simply do not know
>>>> about it."
>>>>
>>>> We would love Oxfordshire to trail-blaze a full pilot with all-party
>>>> support, but at least I hope Mr Tyce is reassured that groups are
>>>> actively campaigning for Oxfordshire to lead the way with an
>>>> efficient land tax.
>>>> (381 words)
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Jock Coats,
>>>> Wardens' Lodgings, Morrell Hall, OX3 0TU
>>>> Tel: 07769 695767
>>>> e-mail: jock.coats@...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
> (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
> To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
> To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767







Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

There was an interesting thread last December that touched on this issue of
LVT on open spaces in urban areas titled 'Ownership transfer'.

The conclusion that I took from that was that either:

a) Zoning of that land for use as an open space (by urban planning) made the
'rental value' of the land zero and thus made the LVT zero.

or

b) (without zoning) If the local community (the users) see a value in the
land being an open space then they should be able to place a suitable market
value on that space and be prepared to pay for it out of community funds
(tax income for the local council). This depends on the argument that the
value of open spaces can be measured economically - perhaps in a community
where LVT is charged you are much more likely to see a social fairness that
means the social benefits *can* be measured economically, unlike in a less
egalitarian economic community where distortions in the market (deriving
from the power of land ownership) are more likely to ensure that social
benefits cannot be quantified economically.

Cheers,

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On
> Behalf Of Terence Bendixson
> Sent: 29 May 2005 12:35
> To: Jock Coats
> Cc: Land Café
> Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies
>
>
> Jock
>
> Thanks for your helpful message. So the local planning authority
> would have
> no power to waive LVT in 'special cases'. Quite right too. Think what
> corruption that would lead to.
>
> And I take you point completely about LVT making transparent values and
> privileges that are now hidden. But what about parks and commons?
> Would they
> be taxed?  Would the local authority pay the tax due from them
> out of other
> LVT revenues? Or would the development plan zone such places as having no
> development value?
>
> If the latter is the case and the planning authority had wide
> powers to zone
> for no development, might that deliver the best of both worlds?  It would
> take public amenity land out of the market and leave all other
> sites in. And
> it would make it possible to have small parks at epicentres of
> land values.
> Or is that too much interference with the market?
>
> Regards
>
> Terence Bendixson

Ed Dodson responding...
Mark Porthouse wrote (5/29):


There was an interesting thread last December that touched on this issue of
LVT on open spaces in urban areas titled 'Ownership transfer'.

The conclusion that I took from that was that either:

a) Zoning of that land for use as an open space (by urban planning) made the
'rental value' of the land zero and thus made the LVT zero.

or

b) (without zoning) If the local community (the users) see a value in the
land being an open space then they should be able to place a suitable market
value on that space and be prepared to pay for it out of community funds
(tax income for the local council). This depends on the argument that the
value of open spaces can be measured economically - perhaps in a community
where LVT is charged you are much more likely to see a social fairness that
means the social benefits *can* be measured economically, unlike in a less
egalitarian economic community where distortions in the market (deriving
from the power of land ownership) are more likely to ensure that social
benefits cannot be quantified economically.

Ed Dodson here:
The market dynamics that drive land value are fairly straightforward. The
rental value of a location will tend to be higher absent restrictions on
use, inasmuch as restrictions impose costs on the potential user.

Zoning, as a planning tool, certainly influences rental values (which, in
turn, influences the capitalization of such values into sought after selling
prices).

An effective strategy communities might pursue to obtain accurate,
up-to-date market data on land rental values is to maintain a percentage of
land in community ownership but offered to private users under a leasehold
arrangement. The leasehold period can be of a length sufficient to guarantee
secure use of improvements made to the location (e.g., 20-30 years) but with
provisions for periodic adjustment in annual rental charges based on market
location rents.

If real property assessments are based on selling price, as they are in
the United States, then zoning away all practical uses would not
reduce that price to zero unless the tax on land were quite heavy. The
reason is that selling prices are based on speculation about projected
future rental value, not just current value. In this case, the speculation
would be that a person with sufficient influence over the zoning board
could get that zoning restriction lifted.

This is the core problem with zoning: It makes the value of land
subject to changes of heart by the zoning board, providing the means
for massive enrichment through political influence. As Albert Jay
Nock wrote,

     So long as the State stands as an impersonal mechanism which
     can confer an economic advantage at the mere touch of a
     button, men will seek by all sorts of ways to get at the button,
     because law-made property is acquired with less exertion than
     labour-made property.  It is easier to push the button and get
     some form of State-created monopoly like a land-title, a tariff,
     concession or franchise, and pocket the proceeds, than it is to
     accumulate the same by work.  Thus a political theory that
     admits any positive intervention by the State upon the
     individual has always this natural law to reckon with...

Thus, I greatly prefer Mark's second proposal, that the people of the
community should buy open space from the proceeds of the land
value tax in order to permanently make that space a public park. To
reinforce Mark's assertion that the benefits of the park are
quantifiable, I would note that the difference in value between the
land around New York City's Central Park and similar land that is not
near a park vastly exceeds the development value of the park itself
and the costs of maintaining and operating the park.

-ds

On 29 May 2005 at 23:30, Mark Porthouse wrote:

> There was an interesting thread last December that touched on this
> issue of LVT on open spaces in urban areas titled 'Ownership
> transfer'.
>
> The conclusion that I took from that was that either:
>
> a) Zoning of that land for use as an open space (by urban planning)
> made the 'rental value' of the land zero and thus made the LVT zero.
>
> or
>
> b) (without zoning) If the local community (the users) see a value in
> the land being an open space then they should be able to place a
> suitable market value on that space and be prepared to pay for it out
> of community funds (tax income for the local council). This depends on
> the argument that the value of open spaces can be measured
> economically - perhaps in a community where LVT is charged you are
> much more likely to see a social fairness that means the social
> benefits *can* be measured economically, unlike in a less egalitarian
> economic community where distortions in the market (deriving from the
> power of land ownership) are more likely to ensure that social
> benefits cannot be quantified economically.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On
> > Behalf Of Terence Bendixson Sent: 29 May 2005 12:35 To: Jock Coats
> > Cc: Land Café Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies
> >
> >
> > Jock
> >
> > Thanks for your helpful message. So the local planning authority
> > would have no power to waive LVT in 'special cases'. Quite right
> > too. Think what corruption that would lead to.
> >
> > And I take you point completely about LVT making transparent values
> > and privileges that are now hidden. But what about parks and
> > commons? Would they be taxed?  Would the local authority pay the tax
> > due from them out of other LVT revenues? Or would the development
> > plan zone such places as having no development value?
> >
> > If the latter is the case and the planning authority had wide
> > powers to zone
> > for no development, might that deliver the best of both worlds?  It
> > would take public amenity land out of the market and leave all other
> > sites in. And it would make it possible to have small parks at
> > epicentres of land values. Or is that too much interference with the
> > market?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Terence Bendixson
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> Give underprivileged students the materials
> they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific
> classroom project.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/J1EolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-
> >
>
> Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
> (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
> To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
> To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>