The point is that it is a starting place. An interesting history about the Finance Act of 1910! The footnote takes you to the National Archives where you canNov 28, 2012 1 of 46View SourceThe point is that it is a starting place.An interesting history about the Finance Act of 1910! The footnote takes you to the National Archives where you can apparently look at the maps from then. I don't see the sourcing in the wikipedia, but it is interesting that the land value tax was abolished in the 1920 and that the UK actually had a land value tax! Although, the history elsewhere it looks like it was more of a transfer tax than an annual ad valorem tax.What about total land value in 1910 times inflation rate for the last 100 years (http://www.whatsthecost.com/historic.cpi.aspx ) as a guestimation!JDKOn Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, k_r_johansen <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
The VOA AFAIK only makes frequent assessment with regards to those premises that are subject to business rates (commercial property). They are responsible for the valuations for council tax, but they haven't been done for a while.
... It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch forDec 1 6:19 PM 46 of 46View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> There is an enormous amount of urban land of all values which is presently held out of use at rack-rent (or higher) prices.It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch for decades. As long as the long-term economic growth rate exceeds the tax rate, owning land increases the owner's net worth, so there is no reason to take a chance by permitting productive use.
> Such holdings would becomeRents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.
> available to producers and other users with adoption of full land Rent
> collection and Rents would topple to a point where they would accurately
> reflect the advantage provided by the surrounding population.
> You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen toIt's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.
> call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.
> Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief thatNo, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.
> with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.
> I don't know where you got your land-value taxation ideas from, but you treat it as simply a good way to tax.My UIE proposal proves that claim false. LVT is essential to equal human rights.
> The real intention of collecting RentNo, the real intention is to restore the EQUAL RIGHTS of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, relieving the poverty of the less able by ensuring they have free, secure access to economic opportunity, and enabling the more able to rise as high as their productive contributions will carry them by relieving them of the burden of supporting the greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass in exorbitant luxury. I am much more aware of that intention than you, as your opposition to my UIE proposal shows.
> (popularly, land-value taxing) is to produce a genuine equality of
> conditions for all, replacing the present rigged economy which condemns the
> less able to poverty and the more able to a lifetime of paying rack-rent.
> The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towardsI do indeed.
> 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
> But, you probably know that.
-- Roy Langston