Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT

Expand Messages
  • Dave Wetzel
    Thanks to David Reed for bringing this article in today s Guardian to my attention. It makes a change to our two news stories this holiday weekend - royal
    Message 1 of 25 , May 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks to David Reed for bringing this article in today's Guardian to my attention.
      It makes a change to our two news stories this holiday weekend  -  royal wedding and killed terrorist!
       

      Tax property, not people, for a fairer society

      Levies on land values do not depress or distort wealth creation and are easy to assess, cheap to collect and hard to avoi 

       
      Land value tax is dismissed by property owning classes who see rising house prices as a just reward for their labour. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

      Amid all the talk of rebalancing the economy, there is little mention of the most powerful lever the government could pull to generate growth, which involves a switch from taxing income to taxing wealth.

      It is a subject that tends to get little coverage, mainly because its supporters are considered on the fringes of the political spectrum. Ultra-lefties support wealth taxes for obvious reasons. Ultra-capitalists support them because they understand that allowing the rich to ring-fence much of the nation's assets and protect the mechanisms that allow values to increase without any serious government interference robs their children, and everyone else's, of any incentive to work harder.

      And now it is not just the aristocrats who accumulate serious wealth but also increasing numbers of middle income babyboomers – senior teachers, BT engineers, BA airline pilots and local council middle managers. With their million pound homes and million pound pensions, the problem is even bigger.

      For an ultra-capitalist, the rapid accumulation of wealth over the last 15 years, which in property terms amounts to about £2.5 trillion, is making us fat and lazy. Only a wealth tax can sort it out.

      Yet the debate has broadened in recent years with more mainstream groups taking up the cudgels. The OECD, the rich nation's thinktank, has joined the ranks of supporters. Liberal Democrats Chris Huhne and Vince Cable, in their pre-coalition careers, also voiced some sympathy. Andy Burnham adopted the scheme in his pitch for the Labour leadership. Many mainstream economists have also argued the case.

      Social unrest

      The OECD and the orange book Lib Dems, though mostly concerned with making capitalism work better, are also concerned about the potential for social unrest. As the full impact of the financial crisis hits, they can see radical solutions are necessary. They argue for a fairer society because they understand that mature capitalism is becoming sclerotic. Without some fundamental changes those groups with little to lose will turn to protest and violence.

      Burnham, who has evidently been doing more thinking than most in the Labour party, can see the potential for an alliance across the political divide that allows him to give the keys of wealth creation and accumulation back to a younger generation too poor to save and with no option but to rent.

      What they are all talking about is the adoption of a land value tax. Purists would abolish all current taxes and replace them with an LVT that asked for a payment in line with the value of land under ownership.

      Someone earning £40,000 a year would stop paying around £7,000 in income tax, £1,000 to £2,000 in VAT, £1,600 council tax and any of the transaction charges that fill the exchequer's coffers. No more capital gains tax or stamp duty on property sales or the sale of shares. Instead they would pay a fixed annual sum, to be paid monthly, on the value of their land, which could have a wide range, depending on how much the land is worth.

      Move out of town and work locally, and your overall tax bill could be a fraction of its current total. Buy an expensive piece of real estate in the city centre and you would probably pay more.

      There are many consequences of following this path that are positive for wealth creation. The worker keeps all his income and there is a 100% gain for every extra hour worked. If you develop your property, it has only limited effect on the value of the land, giving you every incentive to modernise and improve the property.

      Under the proper working of the council tax, increases in property values, as opposed to land values, lead to higher taxes, which is a disincentive to carry out those improvements in the first place.

      Mark Wadsworth is an economist, blogger, sometime Tory Bow Group adviser and campaigner for land value taxes. He recently told Economic Voice website: "I'm an economist not a politician, and I can only repeat what all the great economists have said down the centuries: taxes on land values are the least bad taxes because they do not depress or distort economic activity, ie wealth creation. Land value tax is easy to assess, cheap to collect and impossible to evade.

      "Not only that, LVT is an entirely voluntary tax: you decide how much you are willing to pay and you choose a house or a flat within that price range. Only, instead of handing over all the rent or purchase price to the current owner, the location value would go to the government."

      What he means by this last sentence is that property prices would necessarily settle at a lower level because a buyer will deduct the location value, knowing they must send it to the exchequer in the form of a tax.

      Fred Harrison, the doyen of LVT proponents, adds that the effects are broader and longer term. In his 2005 book Boom and Bust, he points out that landowners who aggressively accumulate land for property speculation in prime parts of the country would face a huge tax bill. Idle land would be brought into use, subject to planning permission.

      Property wealth

      So not only do we get a tax that is easy and cheap to collect, it would be difficult for the super rich to avoid with their offshore trusts and company ownership structures, and it would also lower the value of the asset that is stifling social mobility – property.

      As the economist Martin Weale has argued, the accumulation of property wealth is in effect an act of theft perpetrated on the younger generation who must pay the exhorbitant prices demanded by baby boomers or rent.

      The OECD argues against taking a purist line. It fully supports tackling taxes on the gains people have made through their businesses activities. These are taxes on entrepreneurialism or plain hard work. (Don't think of the City fat cat, but the Labour-voting JCB driver who works 20 hours overtime only to find he has crossed into the 40% higher tax bracket. The party of higher income taxes is not helping him.)

      However, abolition is a step too far. In a series of documents over the last couple of years the OECD has argued for a shift away from income taxes on individuals and businesses to a land value tax and VAT.

      It wants to retain VAT for several reasons. There is the simple advice never to put all your eggs in a single basket. But more importantly, in an age of consumerism and potential environmental degradation, government's need to influence consumer behaviour and sales taxes are another tool. VAT is embedded in European tax raising and, like LVT, is hard to avoid.

      Despite all these advantages, there are many powerful forces ready to dismiss LVT as fanciful, not least the property-owning classes who have an entrenched view that their house price is a just reward for their labour.

      But what LVT campaigners have shown is that the average taxpayer will be no worse off – they will simply pay less income tax and a higher wealth tax.


      --
       
      Best Wishes,

       Dave

       Dave Wetzel
      "Transforming Communities".
      Sustainable Transport Policies ▪ Public Finance with Social Inclusion ▪ Affordable Housing ▪ Economic Land Policies with Justice.

      Tel: 0208 568 9004  
      Intl:+44 208 568 9004

      Mobile/Cellphone: 07715 32 29 26  
      Intl: +44 7715 32 29 26

      e-mail: davewetzel42@...

      40 Adelaide Terrace. Great West Road.
      Brentford. LONDON. TW8 9PQ. UK
      Web:
      www.LabourLand.org
      www.TheIU.org
      www.course.earthrights.net

    • roy_langston1
      ... Comments are now closed on the thread, but the geoist forces clearly won the day. Thanks to John and anyone else here who particpiated (I didn t recognize
      Message 2 of 25 , May 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel
        <davewetzel42@...> wrote:

        > Thanks to David Reed for bringing this article
        > in today's Guardian to my attention.
        ...
        > Tax property, not people, for a fairer society
        >
        > Levies on land values do not depress or distort
        > wealth creation and are easy
        > to assess, cheap to collect and hard to avoi
        >
        > - <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/phillipinman>Phillip
        > Inman<http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/phillipinman>
        > - The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian>,
        > Monday 2 May 2011

        Comments are now closed on the thread, but the geoist
        forces clearly won the day. Thanks to John and anyone
        else here who particpiated (I didn't recognize anyone
        else's style or nom de plume).

        -- Roy Langston
      • John
        ... A follow up article in the Guardian by David Cooper:
        Message 3 of 25 , May 9, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel
          > <davewetzel42@> wrote:
          >
          > > Thanks to David Reed for bringing this article
          > > in today's Guardian to my attention.
          > ...
          > > Tax property, not people, for a fairer society
          > >
          > > Levies on land values do not depress or distort
          > > wealth creation and are easy
          > > to assess, cheap to collect and hard to avoi
          > >
          > > - <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/phillipinman>Phillip
          > > Inman<http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/phillipinman>
          > > - The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian>,
          > > Monday 2 May 2011
          >
          > Comments are now closed on the thread, but the geoist
          > forces clearly won the day. Thanks to John and anyone
          > else here who particpiated (I didn't recognize anyone
          > else's style or nom de plume).
          >
          > -- Roy Langston

          A follow up article in the Guardian by David Cooper:
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/land-value-tax-david-cooper?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

          Phillip Inman says that land value tax (LVT) supporters "are considered on the fringes of the political spectrum" (Tax property not people for a fairer society, 2 May). This is unfair to the Liberal Democrats and Labour. The Lib Dem manifesto includes a commitment to shift tax from income on to wealth, taking those earning less than £10,000 out of income tax and moving towards land tax. The leading Labour thinktank, Compass, promotes LVT.

          LVT is a tax on the value of land, levied on the plot alone and not including the buildings. A vacant plot in a street would be assessed at exactly the same value as a plot containing a house. As Inman writes, "developing your property has only a limited effect on the value of the land". With the tax, "landowners who aggressively accumulate land for property speculation ... would face a huge tax bill".

          If the owner doesn't pay, the property reverts to the state. Hiding ownership doesn't prevent this. Not even the cleverest tax lawyer can move a Belgravia mansion offshore – that "it would be difficult for the super rich to avoid" is an understatement.

          Of the major parties, only the Conservatives lack a campaign group promoting LVT. The reason is simple: Tories are first and foremost the party of entitlement. Work and enterprise comes a distant second. If the imposition of the tax forced even one wealthy pensioner to move from their large family home, the Daily Mail would headline it as an outrage. The fact that nearly two million pensioners live below the poverty line is irrelevant; they have no entitlement and poverty is their own fault.

          Inman wrongly imagines the rich are "robbing their children" through accumulating property wealth. He mistakenly hopes that Labour's Andy Burnham will find an "alliance across the political divide... to a younger generation too poor to save". Unfortunately he's wrong. In the "fat and lazy" western economies, the rich accumulate property and their children gain entitlement at the expense of the poor.

          LVT is more efficient than income tax. Taxing wages or profit discourages workers and entrepreneurs from useful economic activity, reducing competitiveness. There is a myth that LVT would lead to higher rents, as landlords strive to recoup the cost of the tax. But since landlords already demand what the market will bear, this can't happen.

          The article's headline promises a "fairer society". LVT is indeed fairer than income tax because property wealth is far more concentrated than income. The best-paid 1% get about 8% of the national income. The wealthiest 1% own 23% of the national wealth. It is in property where greatest inequalities lie, not income.

          Support for LVT is not limited to the political fringe and includes establishment luminaries such as Sir Samuel Brittan and Martin Wolf of the Financial Times. With this tax, society would be both fairer and more enterprising – but a bit less comfortable for the entitled.

          David Cooper is secretary of Liberal Democrats Alter (Action on Land Taxation and Economic Reform) info@...
        • John
          Business Week article on how Taiwan uses LVT to dampen down property speculation:
          Message 4 of 25 , May 9, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Business Week article on how Taiwan uses LVT to dampen down property speculation:

            http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-03/taiwan-plans-tax-valuation-rules-to-curb-property-speculation.html
          • roy_langston1
            ... Thanks for posting this, John. 400 comments in two days, and comments are now closed -- before I could even get my oar in! ISTM the anti-LVT side engaged
            Message 5 of 25 , May 9, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
              wrote:

              > A follow up article in the Guardian by David Cooper:
              > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/land-value-tax-david-cooper?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

              Thanks for posting this, John. 400 comments in two days, and comments are now closed -- before I could even get my oar in! ISTM the anti-LVT side engaged in more uninformed and dishonest rhetoric this time around.
              Kudos to David Cooper, and to the energetic pro-LVT commenting group, including physiocrat, radicalchange and DNAse -- whoever they are.

              -- Roy Langston
            • John
              ... Cooper was a bit harsh on Inman when they really both agree. I thought Inman was slightly off mark in some comment but still two decent articles in a top
              Message 6 of 25 , May 9, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@>
                > wrote:
                >
                > > A follow up article in the Guardian by David Cooper:
                > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/land-value-tax-david-cooper?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
                >
                > Thanks for posting this, John. 400 comments in two days, and comments are now closed -- before I could even get my oar in! ISTM the anti-LVT side engaged in more uninformed and dishonest rhetoric this time around.
                > Kudos to David Cooper, and to the energetic pro-LVT commenting group, including physiocrat, radicalchange and DNAse -- whoever they are.
                >
                > -- Roy Langston

                Cooper was a bit harsh on Inman when they really both agree. I thought Inman was slightly off mark in some comment but still two decent articles in a top influential paper.

                The inroads LVT has made inside Labour and the LibDems in the UK is highly significant. The Labour Land Campaign and Compass and other top individuals in the Party have taken it up the agenda ladder. The LibDems have LVT far into their agenda, but they can only ever hold the balance of power in the UK, now PR was foolishly voted out a few days ago - what a debacle that was. See Mark Wadsworth's blog on that.

                If the LibDems a year ago had decided to get in bed with Labour rather than the LVT free zone, the Tories, we may have seen LVT in place in some form right now. Gordon Brown got pissed off with them playing one party over the other, and drove to the palace to resign the Labour gvmt while behind the scenes LibDems were still approaching senior Labour officials. The think tank, Compass' report is highly favourable of LVT and favours it to stabilize housing boom and bust and drag us out of the debt problem.
              • Joshua Vincent
                What happens now? the Lib Dems are obviously about to undergo an agonizing reappraisal of leadership. Will ALTER make any headway in the policy realm? Mr.
                Message 7 of 25 , May 9, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  What happens now? the Lib Dems are obviously about to undergo an agonizing reappraisal of leadership. Will ALTER make any headway in the policy realm?  Mr. Clegg made his choice, now how best to pull back enjoying most of the other parties in an effort to both raise revenue for local councils and to give a modicum of self control to localities?

                  Joshua Vincent, Executive Director
                  Center for the Study of Economics
                  413 South 10th Street
                  Philadelphia, PA 19147
                  215.923.7800 Extension 1
                  www.urbantoolsconsult.org 
                  The Center for the Study of Economics is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit educational foundation.
                  Our mission is to research land value taxation, to assist governments in implementation and to study the effect of land based property taxation where used. We suggest implementation where appropriate but do not support political candidates or become involved in the electoral process.



                  On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:17 PM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
                   



                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > > A follow up article in the Guardian by David Cooper:
                  > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/land-value-tax-david-cooper?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
                  >
                  > Thanks for posting this, John. 400 comments in two days, and comments are now closed -- before I could even get my oar in! ISTM the anti-LVT side engaged in more uninformed and dishonest rhetoric this time around.
                  > Kudos to David Cooper, and to the energetic pro-LVT commenting group, including physiocrat, radicalchange and DNAse -- whoever they are.
                  >
                  > -- Roy Langston

                  Cooper was a bit harsh on Inman when they really both agree. I thought Inman was slightly off mark in some comment but still two decent articles in a top influential paper.

                  The inroads LVT has made inside Labour and the LibDems in the UK is highly significant. The Labour Land Campaign and Compass and other top individuals in the Party have taken it up the agenda ladder. The LibDems have LVT far into their agenda, but they can only ever hold the balance of power in the UK, now PR was foolishly voted out a few days ago - what a debacle that was. See Mark Wadsworth's blog on that.

                  If the LibDems a year ago had decided to get in bed with Labour rather than the LVT free zone, the Tories, we may have seen LVT in place in some form right now. Gordon Brown got pissed off with them playing one party over the other, and drove to the palace to resign the Labour gvmt while behind the scenes LibDems were still approaching senior Labour officials. The think tank, Compass' report is highly favourable of LVT and favours it to stabilize housing boom and bust and drag us out of the debt problem.


                • John
                  ... Josh, Local elections are just mid-term feelers for the national gvmts. It is all up in the air. The AV vote was farcical. There was little TV coverage
                  Message 8 of 25 , May 9, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Vincent <joshua@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > What happens now? the Lib Dems are obviously
                    > about to undergo an agonizing
                    > reappraisal of leadership. Will ALTER make
                    > any headway in the policy realm?
                    > Mr. Clegg made his choice, now how best to
                    > pull back enjoying most of the
                    > other parties in an effort to both raise
                    > revenue for local councils and to
                    > give a modicum of self control to localities?

                    Josh, Local elections are just mid-term feelers for the national gvmts.

                    It is all up in the air. The AV vote was farcical. There was little TV coverage to explain it, and they put it across as 6 of one half dozen of the other. The ballot paper was not clear enough. Many used the AV vote to show displeasure towards the LibDems. OK AV is not the best PR system (it was the only one Cameron would entertain), but it is better than the minimally democratic system we have.

                    The LbDem elders are not happy. Many say do not cooperate with anything regarding major reforms, such as he NHS, etc, and only cooperate on the post CC debt problem. Many would welcome a move over to the Labour camp. Now Brown is out, he disliked Clegg, the road is easier. And LVT has a good chance of getting in even in a minor disguised form.

                    The Labour Leader yesterday had put out feelers for the LibDems to join them. I "believe" they could form a gvmt without an election, as a precedence was made in the 1920s. Last May, the Scots and Welsh, N Ireland SDLP, Greens all said them would side with a LibDem-Labour gvmt. If that is still the case them the change can be seamless.

                    In the last election the immigration issue, to me, dropped Labour out.
                    Many people were openly hostile to it and rightly so as the country had open doors while many were out of work. The BRitish CBI has the Labour and Tory parties in their pockets and all they whine on about is having cheap labour, so the labour market is rigged using immigration. Milliband has stated he would curb immigration and stated they were too lax, so if the coalition collapses and back to the polls, then it looks more rosey. But for any cooperation the LibDems will want PR, which they should get without a referendum. Ironically Labour introduced PR in N Ireland.
                  • ADuffield1@aol.com
                    Josh Below is the first draft of a motion I am planning to submit (via ALTER) to the Lib Dem Federal Conference in September. Constructive comments and
                    Message 9 of 25 , May 9, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Josh

                      Below is the first draft of a motion I am planning to submit (via
                      ALTER) to the Lib Dem Federal Conference in September.
                      Constructive comments and suggestions welcome!

                      Andrew

                      Andrew Duffield
                      2010 Parliamentary Candidate
                      Hexham Constituency
                      ____________

                      Policy Motion - Autumn 2011: ‘Recycling our Common Wealth’

                      Conference:

                      1. congratulates Liberal Democrat ministers for securing a rise in the
                      Income Tax threshold but calls for more to be done to lift low earners
                      and the asset poor out of unfair taxation;

                      2. re-affirms the long held Liberal principle that socially-created
                      wealth accrued by owners of land is the fairest basis for taxation and
                      should replace tax on earnings and enterprise;

                      3. recognises that:

                      a. demand for land raises its value and price, increasing housing and
                      production costs;
                      b. land has no production cost and tends to acquire value that is
                      unearned by its owners;
                      c. land value is due to natural resources or the socially-created
                      advantages of location;
                      d. privatised natural or socially-created value can be fairly recouped
                      by the tax system;
                      e. fairer, simpler taxation can replace less fair taxes without raising
                      the overall burden;

                      4. notes that, unlike taxing income or wealth creation, taxing land
                      values would not distort or discourage economic growth but would tend
                      to stimulate investment and recovery;

                      5. also notes the consensus of most economists that free market forces
                      would prevent any land value tax being passed on in higher rents and
                      that overall housing costs would fall;

                      6. further notes that replacing taxes on incomes with a land value tax
                      would make farming more viable and efficient by reducing land prices
                      and lowering employment overheads;

                      7. asserts that established Liberal Democrat policy to replace the
                      Uniform Business Rate could easily be extended to include all other
                      land, replacing Council Tax in the process;

                      8. believes that taxing land values would encourage the best use of
                      urban land, reducing blight, sprawl and long-distance commuting –
                      benefiting the environment accordingly;

                      9. also believes that effective public transport and local
                      infrastructure improvements could be largely and sustainably
                      self-financed via revenue raised from beneficial land values;

                      10. further believes that land zoned for green space or public amenity
                      should be tax exempt and that low income landowners should be able to
                      defer liability until sale or transfer;*

                      11. confirms that the Liberal Democrat principle of ‘localism’ is
                      applicable to taxation and that local councils should be able to
                      precept any national land value taxation as a result;

                      12. calls for the next Liberal Democrat general election manifesto to
                      include a commitment to a UK Land Value Tax, replacing taxes on jobs
                      and trade, and implemented as below:

                      Year 1 – complete the registration of all UK land;
                      Year 2 – value all land via existing techniques plus Geographic
                      Information Systems;
                      Year 3 – introduce Land Value Tax at national level, replacing Stamp
                      Duty Land Tax, cutting VAT to 15% and raising the Income Tax threshold
                      to exempt minimum wages;
                      Year 4 – extend Land Value Tax (LVT) locally, replacing both Council
                      Tax and UBR;
                      Year 5 – extend LVT to replace other taxes that have negative economic
                      impacts.

                      __________________________________

                      * LAs / HMRC could borrow any revenue foregone using the deferred
                      income as collateral.


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Joshua Vincent <joshua@...>
                      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:37
                      Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT




                      What happens now? the Lib Dems are obviously about to undergo an
                      agonizing reappraisal of leadership. Will ALTER make any headway in the
                      policy realm?  Mr. Clegg made his choice, now how best to pull back
                      enjoying most of the other parties in an effort to both raise revenue
                      for local councils and to give a modicum of self control to localities?


                      Joshua Vincent, Executive Director
                      Center for the Study of Economics
                      413 South 10th Street
                      Philadelphia, PA 19147
                      215.923.7800 Extension 1
                      www.urbantoolsconsult.org 

                      www.urbantools.org


                      The Center for the Study of Economics is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit
                      educational foundation.
                      Our mission is to research land value taxation, to assist governments
                      in implementation and to study the effect of land based property
                      taxation where used. We suggest implementation where appropriate but do
                      not support political candidates or become involved in the electoral
                      process.
                    • John
                      ... LVT is not new to Labour. Land value taxation (LVT) did eventually make it onto the statute books thanks to Labour chancellor Philip Snowden s 1931
                      Message 10 of 25 , May 9, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@>
                        > > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > A follow up article in the Guardian by David Cooper:
                        > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/land-value-tax-david-cooper?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
                        > >
                        > > Thanks for posting this, John. 400 comments in two days, and comments are now closed -- before I could even get my oar in! ISTM the anti-LVT side engaged in more uninformed and dishonest rhetoric this time around.
                        > > Kudos to David Cooper, and to the energetic pro-LVT commenting group, including physiocrat, radicalchange and DNAse -- whoever they are.
                        > >
                        > > -- Roy Langston
                        >
                        > Cooper was a bit harsh on Inman when they really both agree. I thought Inman was slightly off mark in some comment but still two decent articles in a top influential paper.
                        >
                        > The inroads LVT has made inside Labour and the LibDems in the UK is highly significant. The Labour Land Campaign and Compass and other top individuals in the Party have taken it up the agenda ladder. The LibDems have LVT far into their agenda, but they can only ever hold the balance of power in the UK, now PR was foolishly voted out a few days ago - what a debacle that was. See Mark Wadsworth's blog on that.
                        >
                        > If the LibDems a year ago had decided to get in bed with Labour rather than the LVT free zone, the Tories, we may have seen LVT in place in some form right now. Gordon Brown got pissed off with them playing one party over the other, and drove to the palace to resign the Labour gvmt while behind the scenes LibDems were still approaching senior Labour officials. The think tank, Compass' report is highly favourable of LVT and favours it to stabilize housing boom and bust and drag us out of the debt problem.
                        >

                        LVT is not new to Labour.

                        "Land value taxation (LVT) did eventually make it onto the statute books thanks to Labour chancellor Philip Snowden's 1931 budget, only to be overtaken by events, as a run on the Bank of England wrought havoc on the economy and led, in August 1931, to the establishment of Ramsey MacDonald's national government. As John Stewart suggests, the land value tax approach to promoting greater economic justice is necessarily "gradual and humane", but the Great Depression couldn't wait. Immediate steps were required to restore stability, and the measures adopted: income tax hikes, a wage freeze and public spending cuts, would set the context of economic policy making for the next 50 years. When, after the war, the Attlee government set out to rebuild the economy among more inclusive lines, instead of addressing the structural causes of poverty and inequality, it chose to tackle the symptoms through more directly redistributive policies."

                        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/29/post456

                        This was written in 2006, before the CC. The Depression scuppered LVT then. But maybe this time it will be properly used to drag us out - he hopes.
                      • Jock Coats
                        Vince needs leaning on. He s Business Secretary, responsible for the reform of business rates, which as any fule know, even a Tory fule, need reforming, and
                        Message 11 of 25 , May 9, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Vince needs leaning on.  He's Business Secretary, responsible for the reform of business rates, which as any fule know, even a Tory fule, need reforming, and Vince acceded to SVR for business rates in policy and in manifesto.

                          It would help high streets, it would help small businesses, both things that the Tories worry about.  It would put pressure on the out of town retailers whose loss leader alcohol sales even the Tory government is keen to rein in a little.  Some clever ones might spot it as a trojan horse of course, the thin end of the wedge leading to land taxing all land, but it must be worth Vince at least floating the idea in his own department.

                          Grant Shapps says he likes community land trusts, effectively a private form of land value sharing.  

                          On 9 May 2011, at 21:49, ADuffield1@... wrote:

                           

                          Josh

                          Below is the first draft of a motion I am planning to submit (via
                          ALTER) to the Lib Dem Federal Conference in September.
                          Constructive comments and suggestions welcome!

                          Andrew

                          Andrew Duffield
                          2010 Parliamentary Candidate
                          Hexham Constituency
                          ____________

                          Policy Motion - Autumn 2011: ‘Recycling our Common Wealth’

                          Conference:

                          1. congratulates Liberal Democrat ministers for securing a rise in the
                          Income Tax threshold but calls for more to be done to lift low earners
                          and the asset poor out of unfair taxation;

                          2. re-affirms the long held Liberal principle that socially-created
                          wealth accrued by owners of land is the fairest basis for taxation and
                          should replace tax on earnings and enterprise;

                          3. recognises that:

                          a. demand for land raises its value and price, increasing housing and
                          production costs;
                          b. land has no production cost and tends to acquire value that is
                          unearned by its owners;
                          c. land value is due to natural resources or the socially-created
                          advantages of location;
                          d. privatised natural or socially-created value can be fairly recouped
                          by the tax system;
                          e. fairer, simpler taxation can replace less fair taxes without raising
                          the overall burden;

                          4. notes that, unlike taxing income or wealth creation, taxing land
                          values would not distort or discourage economic growth but would tend
                          to stimulate investment and recovery;

                          5. also notes the consensus of most economists that free market forces
                          would prevent any land value tax being passed on in higher rents and
                          that overall housing costs would fall;

                          6. further notes that replacing taxes on incomes with a land value tax
                          would make farming more viable and efficient by reducing land prices
                          and lowering employment overheads;

                          7. asserts that established Liberal Democrat policy to replace the
                          Uniform Business Rate could easily be extended to include all other
                          land, replacing Council Tax in the process;

                          8. believes that taxing land values would encourage the best use of
                          urban land, reducing blight, sprawl and long-distance commuting –
                          benefiting the environment accordingly;

                          9. also believes that effective public transport and local
                          infrastructure improvements could be largely and sustainably
                          self-financed via revenue raised from beneficial land values;

                          10. further believes that land zoned for green space or public amenity
                          should be tax exempt and that low income landowners should be able to
                          defer liability until sale or transfer;*

                          11. confirms that the Liberal Democrat principle of ‘localism’ is
                          applicable to taxation and that local councils should be able to
                          precept any national land value taxation as a result;

                          12. calls for the next Liberal Democrat general election manifesto to
                          include a commitment to a UK Land Value Tax, replacing taxes on jobs
                          and trade, and implemented as below:

                          Year 1 – complete the registration of all UK land;
                          Year 2 – value all land via existing techniques plus Geographic
                          Information Systems;
                          Year 3 – introduce Land Value Tax at national level, replacing Stamp
                          Duty Land Tax, cutting VAT to 15% and raising the Income Tax threshold
                          to exempt minimum wages;
                          Year 4 – extend Land Value Tax (LVT) locally, replacing both Council
                          Tax and UBR;
                          Year 5 – extend LVT to replace other taxes that have negative economic
                          impacts.

                          __________________________________

                          * LAs / HMRC could borrow any revenue foregone using the deferred
                          income as collateral.

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Joshua Vincent <joshua@...>
                          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:37
                          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT

                          What happens now? the Lib Dems are obviously about to undergo an
                          agonizing reappraisal of leadership. Will ALTER make any headway in the
                          policy realm?  Mr. Clegg made his choice, now how best to pull back
                          enjoying most of the other parties in an effort to both raise revenue
                          for local councils and to give a modicum of self control to localities?

                          Joshua Vincent, Executive Director
                          Center for the Study of Economics
                          413 South 10th Street
                          Philadelphia, PA 19147
                          215.923.7800 Extension 1
                          www.urbantoolsconsult.org 

                          www.urbantools.org

                          The Center for the Study of Economics is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit
                          educational foundation.
                          Our mission is to research land value taxation, to assist governments
                          in implementation and to study the effect of land based property
                          taxation where used. We suggest implementation where appropriate but do
                          not support political candidates or become involved in the electoral
                          process.


                          --
                          Jock Coats
                          Warden's Flat 1e, J Block Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
                          m: 07769 695767 skype:jock.coats?call 







                        • John
                          ... Mark Braund of the Guardian last Sept 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/25/land-value-taxation-lvt?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
                          Message 12 of 25 , May 9, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@>
                            > wrote:
                            >
                            > > A follow up article in the Guardian by David Cooper:
                            > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/land-value-tax-david-cooper?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
                            >
                            > Thanks for posting this, John. 400 comments in two days, and comments are now closed -- before I could even get my oar in! ISTM the anti-LVT side engaged in more uninformed and dishonest rhetoric this time around.
                            > Kudos to David Cooper, and to the energetic pro-LVT commenting group, including physiocrat, radicalchange and DNAse -- whoever they are.
                            >
                            > -- Roy Langston

                            Mark Braund of the Guardian last Sept 2010:
                            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/25/land-value-taxation-lvt?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

                            Philippe Legrain in The Times about a year ago:
                            http://www.philippelegrain.com/tax-land-it-cant-be-hidden-from-the-revenue-2/#comments

                            The Spectator Aug 2010:
                            http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6232513/burnham-goes-blue-in-the-face.thtml

                            Andy Burnham The Guardian Aug 2010:
                            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/26/land-value-tax-labour-party
                          • roy_langston1
                            ... Thank you, John. It would be great to see these posted on the LandCafe site ASAP after publication, so we can participate in the discussion before
                            Message 13 of 25 , May 9, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John"
                              <burns-john@...> wrote:

                              > Mark Braund of the Guardian last Sept 2010:
                              > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/25/land-value-taxation-lvt?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
                              >
                              > Philippe Legrain in The Times about a year ago:
                              > http://www.philippelegrain.com/tax-land-it-cant-be-hidden-from-the-revenue-2/#comments
                              >
                              > The Spectator Aug 2010:
                              > http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6232513/burnham-goes-blue-in-the-face.thtml
                              >
                              > Andy Burnham The Guardian Aug 2010:
                              > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/26/land-value-tax-labour-party

                              Thank you, John. It would be great to see these posted
                              on the LandCafe site ASAP after publication, so we can
                              participate in the discussion before comments are closed.

                              -- Roy Langston
                            • roy_langston1
                              ... I would say, to reduce taxes that burden production, consumers and working people ... I would say, ...that it is fairer and more economically benign to
                              Message 14 of 25 , May 9, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, ADuffield1@... wrote:

                                > Constructive comments and suggestions welcome!
                                ...
                                > Conference:
                                >
                                > 1. congratulates Liberal Democrat ministers for
                                > securing a rise in the Income Tax threshold but
                                > calls for more to be done to lift low earners
                                > and the asset poor out of unfair taxation;

                                I would say, "to reduce taxes that burden
                                production, consumers and working people"

                                > 2. re-affirms the long held Liberal principle that
                                > socially-created wealth accrued by owners of land
                                > is the fairest basis for taxation and
                                > should replace tax on earnings and enterprise;

                                I would say, "...that it is fairer and more
                                economically benign to tax value the community
                                contributes to the wealth of idle landowners than
                                value the productive contribute to the wealth of
                                the community"

                                > 3. recognises that:
                                >
                                > a. demand for land raises its value and price,
                                > increasing housing and production costs;
                                > b. land has no production cost and tends to acquire
                                > value that is unearned by its owners;
                                > c. land value is due to natural resources or the
                                > socially-created advantages of location;

                                I would say, "...and the publicly created advantages
                                of location"

                                > d. privatised natural or socially-created value
                                > can be fairly recouped by the tax system;

                                I would say, "it is fairer to recover publicly
                                created value for public purposes and benefit,
                                rather than giving it away to private interests and
                                then having to confiscate privately created value
                                to fund public expenditures"

                                > e. fairer, simpler taxation can replace less fair
                                > taxes without raising the overall burden;

                                "...while reducing the excess burden."

                                > 4. notes that, unlike taxing income or wealth
                                > creation, taxing land values would not distort
                                > or discourage economic growth but would tend
                                > to stimulate investment and recovery;

                                "...investment, employment and economic recovery"

                                > 5. also notes the consensus of most economists
                                > that free market forces would prevent any land
                                > value tax being passed on in higher rents and
                                > that overall housing costs would fall;
                                >
                                > 6. further notes that replacing taxes on incomes
                                > with a land value tax would make farming more
                                > viable and efficient by reducing land prices
                                > and lowering employment overheads;
                                >
                                > 7. asserts that established Liberal Democrat
                                > policy to replace the Uniform Business Rate
                                > could easily be extended to include all other
                                > land, replacing Council Tax in the process;

                                "recommends that established Liberal Democrat
                                policy to replace the Uniform Business Rate
                                be extended to include all land, replacing
                                Council Tax and Stamp Duty in the process;"

                                > 8. believes that taxing land values would
                                > encourage the best use of urban land, reducing
                                > blight, sprawl and long-distance commuting â€"
                                > benefiting the environment accordingly;

                                "recognizes..."

                                > 9. also believes that effective public transport
                                > and local infrastructure improvements could be
                                > largely and sustainably self-financed via revenue
                                > raised from beneficial land values;

                                "...via revenue raised by recovering the additional
                                land value they create"

                                > 10. further believes that land zoned for green
                                > space or public amenity should be tax exempt and
                                > that low income landowners should be able to
                                > defer liability until sale or transfer;*

                                This should be two separate points -- and quite
                                different ones:

                                "10. holds that land zoned for green space should
                                be publicly held and available for public use, not
                                privately held under tax-advantaged status against
                                a time when it will be rezoned for a capital gain"

                                "11. recommends that every resident citizen, owner
                                and tenant alike, be ensured an equal individual
                                land tax exemption like the individual income tax
                                exemption, restoring the equal natural liberty of
                                all to use land"

                                > 11. confirms that the Liberal Democrat principle
                                > of ‘localism’ is applicable to taxation and
                                > that local councils should be able to precept
                                > any national land value taxation as a result;

                                "...should be enabled to levy their own land value
                                taxes independently of any national land value tax"

                                "12. recognizes the relationship between borrowing
                                to buy high-value land and the creation of debt
                                money via the banking system, and urges issuance
                                of sufficient debt-free money by HM Mint to prevent
                                general deflation during the transition to LVT as
                                the costs of land and production decline"

                                > 12. calls for the next Liberal Democrat general
                                > election manifesto to include a commitment to a
                                > UK Land Value Tax, replacing taxes on jobs and
                                > trade, and implemented as below:
                                >
                                > Year 1 complete the registration of all UK land;
                                > Year 2 value all land via existing techniques
                                > plus Geographic Information Systems;

                                "Year 1 create a full, publicly accessible online
                                land registry, including robust computer-modeled
                                capital and rental values for all UK land as
                                measured by comparable transaction prices"

                                > Year 3 â€" introduce Land Value Tax at national
                                > level, replacing Stamp Duty Land Tax, cutting
                                > VAT to 15% and raising the Income Tax threshold
                                > to exempt minimum wages;

                                "Year 2 introduce national and local land value tax,
                                reducing VAT to 15% and replacing Stamp Duty, Council
                                Tax, and UBR"

                                > Year 4 â€" extend Land Value Tax (LVT) locally,
                                > replacing both Council Tax and UBR;
                                > Year 5 â€" extend LVT to replace other taxes that
                                > have negative economic impacts.

                                "Year 3 continue to reduce or abolish unfair and
                                economically harmful taxes, replacing their revenue
                                with increased LVT revenue"


                                Good luck with it!

                                -- Roy Langston
                              • John
                                ... wrote: --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: ... -lvt?comm entpage=all#start-of-comments Philippe Legrain in The Times
                                Message 15 of 25 , May 10, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John"
                                  > <burns-john@> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Mark Braund of the Guardian last Sept 2010:
                                  > >
                                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/25/land-value-taxation-lvt?comm\
                                  entpage=all#start-of-comments
                                  > >
                                  > > Philippe Legrain in The Times about a year ago:
                                  > >
                                  http://www.philippelegrain.com/tax-land-it-cant-be-hidden-from-the-revenue-2/#co\
                                  mments
                                  > >
                                  > > The Spectator Aug 2010:
                                  > >
                                  http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6232513/burnham-goes-blue-in-the-face.tht\
                                  ml
                                  > >
                                  > > Andy Burnham The Guardian Aug 2010:
                                  > >
                                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/26/land-value-tax-labour-party
                                  >
                                  > Thank you, John. It would be great to see these posted
                                  > on the LandCafe site ASAP after publication, so we can
                                  > participate in the discussion before comments are closed.

                                  It is when people read the paper and look on the web that they are noticed.

                                  Many of the anti-LVT posters are confused. They do not understand how the wealth got into the their land. They think the wealth in the land is theirs and only theirs and taking it by taxation is theft.  They think they made the wealth by just living on the land and painting the windows. That needs explaining to them up front.  Simple figures of what the average man pays in income and all other taxes, and what they pay in LVT are effective.  People warm to figures they can relate to.  

                                  The problem is someone coming up to retirement with a house that is worth £800,000 to £1 million. Tell them they need LVT and see the response.  OK, they will not pay tax on their pensions and all the other taxes, but the big sum of the wealth in the land overpowers them in assessing the everyday benefits of no other taxes.   They regard the wealth locked into the land as a fallback - security. 

                                  Many do not see the land wealth as accessible throughout their working lives when they need money the most with families.  No income tax would have helped no end when running a family - this they can't see.  Most can only see one point at a time.   As one relative said to me at the weekend, "it doesn't make any difference, as when you move to a better house you have to pay more, or when you move to another of the same value it makes no difference".  They do see the land wealth as a sort of pension and millions in the UK do not have decent pensions relying on the land wealth to see them through.  Many, I would say most, just see it as leaving wealth to their children, so we end up with wealthy middle aged people when their parents die, who no doubt are sitting on land wealth as well. 

                                  The point of no income tax would appeal to the young who would like more everyday money to spend - and they are the ones LVTers need to grab. 

                                  The prime point is that LVT is getting friends in high places in the UK. If there is a Labour/Lib Dem coalition there is an excellent chance of it being implemented in some form. When all the economic commentators of the leading rags are for it the politicos have ammunition.  

                                  Mark Wadsworth's blog occasionally puts links to the articles.
                                • Harry Pollard
                                  Taiwan got rid of their land-value tax after it had effectively set them on a straight course toward prosperity. Now, they are fiddling around with a policy
                                  Message 16 of 25 , May 10, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    Taiwan got rid of their land-value tax after it had effectively set them on a straight course toward prosperity.

                                     

                                    Now, they are fiddling around with a policy that in no way comes close to a genuine LVT. They are using the mantra of the economic control freaks – Tax it to reduce activity, subsidize it to speed up activity.

                                     

                                    Harry

                                     

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

                                    Henry George School of Los Angeles

                                    Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

                                    (818) 352-4141

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

                                     

                                    From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
                                    Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:04 AM
                                    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT

                                     

                                     

                                    Business Week article on how Taiwan uses LVT to dampen down property speculation:

                                    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-03/taiwan-plans-tax-valuation-rules-to-curb-property-speculation.html

                                  • roy_langston1
                                    ... John, is Labour so cowed by landowner and bankster privilege that they refuse to know immigration increases land rents and reduces wages? Reduced wages
                                    Message 17 of 25 , May 10, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
                                      wrote:

                                      > In the last election the immigration issue, to me,
                                      > dropped Labour out.
                                      > Many people were openly hostile to it and rightly so as
                                      > the country had open doors while many were out of work.
                                      > The BRitish CBI has the Labour and Tory parties in their
                                      > pockets and all they whine on about is having cheap
                                      > labour, so the labour market is rigged using immigration.

                                      John, is Labour so cowed by landowner and bankster
                                      privilege that they refuse to know immigration increases
                                      land rents and reduces wages? Reduced wages don't even
                                      make business more competitive. They just increase
                                      commercial and industrial rents along with residential.

                                      -- Roy Langston
                                    • John
                                      ... Great point Roy. The more business make the more the landowners can up the rent. Shifting wealth from those who create economic growth to those who do
                                      Message 18 of 25 , May 10, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment

                                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" burns-john@
                                        > wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > In the last election the immigration issue, to me,
                                        > > dropped Labour out.
                                        > > Many people were openly hostile to it and rightly so as
                                        > > the country had open doors while many were out of work.
                                        > > The BRitish CBI has the Labour and Tory parties in their
                                        > > pockets and all they whine on about is having cheap
                                        > > labour, so the labour market is rigged using immigration.
                                        >
                                        > John, is Labour so cowed by landowner and bankster
                                        > privilege that they refuse to know immigration increases
                                        > land rents and reduces wages? Reduced wages don't even
                                        > make business more competitive. They just increase
                                        > commercial and industrial rents along with residential.

                                        Great point Roy. The more business' make the more the landowners can up the rent. Shifting wealth from those who create economic growth to those who do not.  Labour did move towards the crowing of the landowners and those who want a rigged "free-market", like the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), giving them what they wanted.  Labour lost their roots. 

                                        OK you have to move with the times. Labour was originally setup by the Trades Unions (the political arm, but independent) to represent the working classes in the 1800s, to eliminate the levels of grinding poverty - to its credit it did.  Most people now in the UK are middle class so the party moved to represent them. But most middle class were of working class origin, and still held working class values, which the party lost track of.

                                        The party needs shaking down, the new guy seems to realize this to some extent.  How much?  We shall see.   LVT was a part of the original Labour Party commitment and subsequently it was high up on the agenda at various times, but the party pandered to the British Establishment. In effect the Labour Party became a part of the British Establishment.  

                                        To some degree, there was only so much it could do.  The military was in the hands of the landowning Tories. In the 1960/70s there was about 2 or 3 planned military coups against the Labour Party (vox pop info) while in power.  At a time when there was full employment.  The people were not dissatisfied. The privileged strata were not content.

                                      • David Reed
                                        Would suggest @8 Insert after long distance commuting by infilling parcels of speculatively withheld land The final year-by-year programme is somewhat
                                        Message 19 of 25 , May 13, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Would suggest
                                          @8 Insert after long distance commuting "by infilling parcels of speculatively withheld land" 
                                          The final year-by-year programme is somewhat Procrustean witht the usual massive land value surveys by professionals.They were still ploughing through these when the Lloyd George partial LVT and the Snowden full LVT were being abolished.Possible alternatives are
                                          I) converting Council Tax on revenue neutral basis to  Land Value only; then
                                          2) owner occupiers to self assess by deducting insurance rebuild value (published by councils possibly franchising ABI figures) from open market value to leave the land value by the residual method  ,this being the method surveyors  use anyway.Self assessment would avoid the "armies of of officials" accusations and would make punters realise how much of their houses' value was down to the land.
                                          There is no point in taxing land if people don't realise there's some justice in it,to my way of thinking .
                                          Also LV payments might usefully be made part of the monthly PAYE system.
                                          We would be very lucky to get such a well -thought through LVT as this ,even without amendment.
                                          All the best,Dave Reed 
                                           
                                            

                                          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                          From: ADuffield1@...
                                          Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:49:32 -0400
                                          Subject: [LandCafe] Recycling Wealth (was: Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT)

                                           
                                          Josh

                                          Below is the first draft of a motion I am planning to submit (via
                                          ALTER) to the Lib Dem Federal Conference in September.
                                          Constructive comments and suggestions welcome!

                                          Andrew

                                          Andrew Duffield
                                          2010 Parliamentary Candidate
                                          Hexham Constituency
                                          ____________

                                          Policy Motion - Autumn 2011: ‘Recycling our Common Wealth’

                                          Conference:

                                          1. congratulates Liberal Democrat ministers for securing a rise in the
                                          Income Tax threshold but calls for more to be done to lift low earners
                                          and the asset poor out of unfair taxation;

                                          2. re-affirms the long held Liberal principle that socially-created
                                          wealth accrued by owners of land is the fairest basis for taxation and
                                          should replace tax on earnings and enterprise;

                                          3. recognises that:

                                          a. demand for land raises its value and price, increasing housing and
                                          production costs;
                                          b. land has no production cost and tends to acquire value that is
                                          unearned by its owners;
                                          c. land value is due to natural resources or the socially-created
                                          advantages of location;
                                          d. privatised natural or socially-created value can be fairly recouped
                                          by the tax system;
                                          e. fairer, simpler taxation can replace less fair taxes without raising
                                          the overall burden;

                                          4. notes that, unlike taxing income or wealth creation, taxing land
                                          values would not distort or discourage economic growth but would tend
                                          to stimulate investment and recovery;

                                          5. also notes the consensus of most economists that free market forces
                                          would prevent any land value tax being passed on in higher rents and
                                          that overall housing costs would fall;

                                          6. further notes that replacing taxes on incomes with a land value tax
                                          would make farming more viable and efficient by reducing land prices
                                          and lowering employment overheads;

                                          7. asserts that established Liberal Democrat policy to replace the
                                          Uniform Business Rate could easily be extended to include all other
                                          land, replacing Council Tax in the process;

                                          8. believes that taxing land values would encourage the best use of
                                          urban land, reducing blight, sprawl and long-distance commuting –
                                          benefiting the environment accordingly;

                                          9. also believes that effective public transport and local
                                          infrastructure improvements could be largely and sustainably
                                          self-financed via revenue raised from beneficial land values;

                                          10. further believes that land zoned for green space or public amenity
                                          should be tax exempt and that low income landowners should be able to
                                          defer liability until sale or transfer;*

                                          11. confirms that the Liberal Democrat principle of ‘localism’ is
                                          applicable to taxation and that local councils should be able to
                                          precept any national land value taxation as a result;

                                          12. calls for the next Liberal Democrat general election manifesto to
                                          include a commitment to a UK Land Value Tax, replacing taxes on jobs
                                          and trade, and implemented as below:

                                          Year 1 – complete the registration of all UK land;
                                          Year 2 – value all land via existing techniques plus Geographic
                                          Information Systems;
                                          Year 3 – introduce Land Value Tax at national level, replacing Stamp
                                          Duty Land Tax, cutting VAT to 15% and raising the Income Tax threshold
                                          to exempt minimum wages;
                                          Year 4 – extend Land Value Tax (LVT) locally, replacing both Council
                                          Tax and UBR;
                                          Year 5 – extend LVT to replace other taxes that have negative economic
                                          impacts.

                                          __________________________________

                                          * LAs / HMRC could borrow any revenue foregone using the deferred
                                          income as collateral.

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Joshua Vincent <joshua@...>
                                          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:37
                                          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT

                                          What happens now? the Lib Dems are obviously about to undergo an
                                          agonizing reappraisal of leadership. Will ALTER make any headway in the
                                          policy realm?  Mr. Clegg made his choice, now how best to pull back
                                          enjoying most of the other parties in an effort to both raise revenue
                                          for local councils and to give a modicum of self control to localities?

                                          Joshua Vincent, Executive Director
                                          Center for the Study of Economics
                                          413 South 10th Street
                                          Philadelphia, PA 19147
                                          215.923.7800 Extension 1
                                          www.urbantoolsconsult.org 

                                          www.urbantools.org

                                          The Center for the Study of Economics is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit
                                          educational foundation.
                                          Our mission is to research land value taxation, to assist governments
                                          in implementation and to study the effect of land based property
                                          taxation where used. We suggest implementation where appropriate but do
                                          not support political candidates or become involved in the electoral
                                          process.

                                        • walto
                                          In 3 (e) you have the fair/unfair contrast but leave out the simple/complex contrast. Have you thought about doing something in (10) to preempt the common
                                          Message 20 of 25 , May 13, 2011
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            In 3 (e) you have the fair/unfair contrast but leave out the simple/complex contrast.

                                            Have you thought about doing something in (10) to preempt the common complaint regarding those who have recently purchased the sites at already inflated prices? This issue (which is related to David Reed's critique) has always been one of the key reasons for widespread objections to LVT.

                                            I don't have any particular suggestion, because the entire matter has always been so controversial, even among geoists. I've generally taken the position that a gradual implementation handles it, since the residual monopoly-value is retained for awhile that way, but the restitution battles go on and on and on. Fairness intuitions vary pretty widely.

                                            W


                                            >
                                            > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                            > From: ADuffield1@...
                                            > Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:49:32 -0400
                                            > Subject: [LandCafe] Recycling Wealth (was: Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT)
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Josh
                                            >
                                            > Below is the first draft of a motion I am planning to submit (via
                                            > ALTER) to the Lib Dem Federal Conference in September.
                                            > Constructive comments and suggestions welcome!
                                            >
                                            > Andrew
                                            >
                                            > Andrew Duffield
                                            > 2010 Parliamentary Candidate
                                            > Hexham Constituency
                                            > ____________
                                            >
                                            > Policy Motion - Autumn 2011: `Recycling our Common Wealth'
                                            >
                                            > Conference:
                                            >
                                            > 1. congratulates Liberal Democrat ministers for securing a rise in the
                                            > Income Tax threshold but calls for more to be done to lift low earners
                                            > and the asset poor out of unfair taxation;
                                            >
                                            > 2. re-affirms the long held Liberal principle that socially-created
                                            > wealth accrued by owners of land is the fairest basis for taxation and
                                            > should replace tax on earnings and enterprise;
                                            >
                                            > 3. recognises that:
                                            >
                                            > a. demand for land raises its value and price, increasing housing and
                                            > production costs;
                                            > b. land has no production cost and tends to acquire value that is
                                            > unearned by its owners;
                                            > c. land value is due to natural resources or the socially-created
                                            > advantages of location;
                                            > d. privatised natural or socially-created value can be fairly recouped
                                            > by the tax system;
                                            > e. fairer, simpler taxation can replace less fair taxes without raising
                                            > the overall burden;
                                            >
                                            > 4. notes that, unlike taxing income or wealth creation, taxing land
                                            > values would not distort or discourage economic growth but would tend
                                            > to stimulate investment and recovery;
                                            >
                                            > 5. also notes the consensus of most economists that free market forces
                                            > would prevent any land value tax being passed on in higher rents and
                                            > that overall housing costs would fall;
                                            >
                                            > 6. further notes that replacing taxes on incomes with a land value tax
                                            > would make farming more viable and efficient by reducing land prices
                                            > and lowering employment overheads;
                                            >
                                            > 7. asserts that established Liberal Democrat policy to replace the
                                            > Uniform Business Rate could easily be extended to include all other
                                            > land, replacing Council Tax in the process;
                                            >
                                            > 8. believes that taxing land values would encourage the best use of
                                            > urban land, reducing blight, sprawl and long-distance commuting –
                                            > benefiting the environment accordingly;
                                            >
                                            > 9. also believes that effective public transport and local
                                            > infrastructure improvements could be largely and sustainably
                                            > self-financed via revenue raised from beneficial land values;
                                            >
                                            > 10. further believes that land zoned for green space or public amenity
                                            > should be tax exempt and that low income landowners should be able to
                                            > defer liability until sale or transfer;*
                                            >
                                            > 11. confirms that the Liberal Democrat principle of `localism' is
                                            > applicable to taxation and that local councils should be able to
                                            > precept any national land value taxation as a result;
                                            >
                                            > 12. calls for the next Liberal Democrat general election manifesto to
                                            > include a commitment to a UK Land Value Tax, replacing taxes on jobs
                                            > and trade, and implemented as below:
                                            >
                                            > Year 1 – complete the registration of all UK land;
                                            > Year 2 – value all land via existing techniques plus Geographic
                                            > Information Systems;
                                            > Year 3 – introduce Land Value Tax at national level, replacing Stamp
                                            > Duty Land Tax, cutting VAT to 15% and raising the Income Tax threshold
                                            > to exempt minimum wages;
                                            > Year 4 – extend Land Value Tax (LVT) locally, replacing both Council
                                            > Tax and UBR;
                                            > Year 5 – extend LVT to replace other taxes that have negative economic
                                            > impacts.
                                            >
                                            > __________________________________
                                            >
                                            > * LAs / HMRC could borrow any revenue foregone using the deferred
                                            > income as collateral.
                                            >
                                            > -----Original Message-----
                                            > From: Joshua Vincent <joshua@...>
                                            > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Sent: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:37
                                            > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT
                                            >
                                            > What happens now? the Lib Dems are obviously about to undergo an
                                            > agonizing reappraisal of leadership. Will ALTER make any headway in the
                                            > policy realm? Mr. Clegg made his choice, now how best to pull back
                                            > enjoying most of the other parties in an effort to both raise revenue
                                            > for local councils and to give a modicum of self control to localities?
                                            >
                                            > Joshua Vincent, Executive Director
                                            > Center for the Study of Economics
                                            > 413 South 10th Street
                                            > Philadelphia, PA 19147
                                            > 215.923.7800 Extension 1
                                            > www.urbantoolsconsult.org
                                            >
                                            > www.urbantools.org
                                            >
                                            > The Center for the Study of Economics is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit
                                            > educational foundation.
                                            > Our mission is to research land value taxation, to assist governments
                                            > in implementation and to study the effect of land based property
                                            > taxation where used. We suggest implementation where appropriate but do
                                            > not support political candidates or become involved in the electoral
                                            > process.
                                            >
                                          • Harry Pollard
                                            I understand John, that Labor wasn t all that keen to enter a coalition with the Lib-Dems. Also, as I recall, such a coalition would need support from a bunch
                                            Message 21 of 25 , May 13, 2011
                                            • 0 Attachment

                                              I understand John, that Labor wasn’t all that keen to enter a coalition with the Lib-Dems. Also, as I recall, such a coalition would need support from a bunch of smaller party members to get a majority.

                                               

                                              It would be a tricky majority to hold and if it collapsed and another election was held, the country would be very unhappy with the Lib-Lab coalition and would probably give a majority to the Tories.

                                               

                                              In such circumstances, the present coalition seems reasonable as it provided a government that can survive at a time when the economy needs a lot of work.

                                               

                                              At the moment, it seems that Labor would win a majority without the Lib-Dems. However, that wouldn’t prevent a coalition between them.

                                               

                                              Harry

                                               

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

                                              Henry George School of Los Angeles

                                              Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

                                              (818) 352-4141

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

                                               

                                              From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
                                              Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:56 PM
                                              To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT

                                               

                                               



                                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@>
                                              > > wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > > A follow up article in the Guardian by David Cooper:
                                              > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/land-value-tax-david-cooper?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
                                              > >
                                              > > Thanks for posting this, John. 400 comments in two days, and comments are now closed -- before I could even get my oar in! ISTM the anti-LVT side engaged in more uninformed and dishonest rhetoric this time around.
                                              > > Kudos to David Cooper, and to the energetic pro-LVT commenting group, including physiocrat, radicalchange and DNAse -- whoever they are.
                                              > >
                                              > > -- Roy Langston
                                              >
                                              > Cooper was a bit harsh on Inman when they really both agree. I thought Inman was slightly off mark in some comment but still two decent articles in a top influential paper.
                                              >
                                              > The inroads LVT has made inside Labour and the LibDems in the UK is highly significant. The Labour Land Campaign and Compass and other top individuals in the Party have taken it up the agenda ladder. The LibDems have LVT far into their agenda, but they can only ever hold the balance of power in the UK, now PR was foolishly voted out a few days ago - what a debacle that was. See Mark Wadsworth's blog on that.
                                              >
                                              > If the LibDems a year ago had decided to get in bed with Labour rather than the LVT free zone, the Tories, we may have seen LVT in place in some form right now. Gordon Brown got pissed off with them playing one party over the other, and drove to the palace to resign the Labour gvmt while behind the scenes LibDems were still approaching senior Labour officials. The think tank, Compass' report is highly favourable of LVT and favours it to stabilize housing boom and bust and drag us out of the debt problem.
                                              >

                                              LVT is not new to Labour.

                                              "Land value taxation (LVT) did eventually make it onto the statute books thanks to Labour chancellor Philip Snowden's 1931 budget, only to be overtaken by events, as a run on the Bank of England wrought havoc on the economy and led, in August 1931, to the establishment of Ramsey MacDonald's national government. As John Stewart suggests, the land value tax approach to promoting greater economic justice is necessarily "gradual and humane", but the Great Depression couldn't wait. Immediate steps were required to restore stability, and the measures adopted: income tax hikes, a wage freeze and public spending cuts, would set the context of economic policy making for the next 50 years. When, after the war, the Attlee government set out to rebuild the economy among more inclusive lines, instead of addressing the structural causes of poverty and inequality, it chose to tackle the symptoms through more directly redistributive policies."

                                              http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/29/post456

                                              This was written in 2006, before the CC. The Depression scuppered LVT then. But maybe this time it will be properly used to drag us out - he hopes.

                                            • John
                                              ... They did make a try. Gordon Brown resigned as party leader after the election. so any new LibDem-Lab coalition would not have Brown as the new PM. Brown
                                              Message 22 of 25 , May 13, 2011
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > I understand John, that Labor wasn't all
                                                > that keen to enter a coalition with
                                                > the Lib-Dems.

                                                They did make a try. Gordon Brown resigned as party leader after the election. so any new LibDem-Lab coalition would not have Brown as the new PM. Brown and Clegg did not get on.

                                                The anachronistic Tories gave a lot away, giving ministerial positions to LibDems - the deputy PM is Clegg. The ministerial cars attracted the LibDems.

                                                The senior LibDems were pushing even for a pact with Labour - with ministerial positions. I just think both sides never tried hard enough.

                                                > It would be a tricky majority to hold and if
                                                > it collapsed and another election was held,
                                                > the country would be very unhappy with the Lib-Lab
                                                > coalition and would probably give a majority to
                                                > the Tories.

                                                Could have been. The Labour Peer Lord Faulkner was ecstatic when Brown resigned the gvmt. He was against a pact with the LibDems. Whoever was in power had an unpopular job to do. Immediately the Tories blamed Labour for the debt (which they agree with at the time) and spin it that Labour were responsible for the world-wide crash. The UKs debt is approx the same as Germany and France.

                                                > In such circumstances, the present coalition
                                                > seems reasonable as it provided
                                                > a government that can survive at a time when
                                                > the economy needs a lot of work.

                                                The gvmt are making vast cuts and wanting the debt paid off quick. Ed Balls the Labour finance man always stated that no, to few, cuts would be made with Labour, paying off over a longer period. He is right. All we have is the LibDems putting a weight on Tory foolishness. Thatcher callously laid waste to huge parts of the North of England, Clegg said he would not tolerate that. So far he is just giving lip service as the north has many public jobs scheduled for cuts.

                                                We all know LVT would pay the debt off quickly,but that is a different matter and a LibDem-Lab pact might have seen LVT introduced in some form.

                                                > At the moment, it seems that Labor would win a majority without the
                                                > Lib-Dems. However, that wouldn't prevent a coalition between them.

                                                Harry, I am not sure. Our pathetic voting system always ensures the Tories get into power far more regularly than their support deserves. Their support is predominantly south England. They are a highly divisive party.
                                              • John
                                                ... Independent Labour MP Andrew MacLaren motioned a private member s bill in Parliament in 1937. It was rejected 141 to 118. Which is quite tight. The United
                                                Message 23 of 25 , May 13, 2011
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

                                                  > If the LibDems a year ago had decided to get in bed with Labour rather than the LVT free zone, the Tories, we may have seen LVT in place in some form right now. Gordon Brown got pissed off with them playing one party over the other, and drove to the palace to resign the Labour gvmt while behind the scenes LibDems were still approaching senior Labour officials. The think tank, Compass' report is highly favourable of LVT and favours it to stabilize housing boom and bust and drag us out of the debt problem.
                                                  >

                                                  Independent Labour MP Andrew MacLaren motioned a private member's bill in Parliament in 1937. It was rejected 141 to 118. Which is quite tight.

                                                  The United Kingdom had a "National Government" (coalition) from 1931 until 1940. The 1931 chancellor of the exchequer was Labour man Snowdon, who had LVT in the 1931 budget. The dominant Tories had it repealed.

                                                  Labour man Herbert Morrison in the 1938–9 Parliament attempted to get LVT into London, called the London Rating Bill. It failed.

                                                  After 1945, the Labour Party adopted a warped version of taxing land called "development value". It taxed the increase in land price when given planning consent. Landowners avoided the tax by not developing their land, when the country was desperately short of homes.

                                                  LVT is not alien to Labour. LVT is not just a LiDem thing. It alien to the Tories who hate it with a vengeance.
                                                • Bryan Kavanagh
                                                  Not, perhaps, to MOST Tories, John? What about the Bow Group? - BK From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , May 13, 2011
                                                  • 0 Attachment

                                                    Not, perhaps, to MOST Tories, John?

                                                    What about the Bow Group?

                                                     

                                                    -          BK

                                                     

                                                    From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
                                                    Sent: Saturday, 14 May 2011 3:46 PM
                                                    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Guardian (London, UK) article on LVT

                                                     

                                                     


                                                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

                                                    > If the LibDems a year ago had decided to get in bed with Labour rather than the LVT free zone, the Tories, we may have seen LVT in place in some form right now. Gordon Brown got pissed off with them playing one party over the other, and drove to the palace to resign the Labour gvmt while behind the scenes LibDems were still approaching senior Labour officials. The think tank, Compass' report is highly favourable of LVT and favours it to stabilize housing boom and bust and drag us out of the debt problem.
                                                    >

                                                    Independent Labour MP Andrew MacLaren motioned a private member's bill in Parliament in 1937. It was rejected 141 to 118. Which is quite tight.

                                                    The United Kingdom had a "National Government" (coalition) from 1931 until 1940. The 1931 chancellor of the exchequer was Labour man Snowdon, who had LVT in the 1931 budget. The dominant Tories had it repealed.

                                                    Labour man Herbert Morrison in the 1938–9 Parliament attempted to get LVT into London, called the London Rating Bill. It failed.

                                                    After 1945, the Labour Party adopted a warped version of taxing land called "development value". It taxed the increase in land price when given planning consent. Landowners avoided the tax by not developing their land, when the country was desperately short of homes.

                                                    LVT is not alien to Labour. LVT is not just a LiDem thing. It alien to the Tories who hate it with a vengeance.

                                                  • John
                                                    ... The Bow Groups s LVT drive consists mainly of one man - Mark Wadsworth. A glimmering light in a sea of darkness. I always wondered why Mark was in the
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , May 14, 2011
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Kavanagh" <bryan@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > Not, perhaps, to MOST Tories, John?
                                                      >
                                                      > What about the Bow Group?

                                                      The Bow Groups's LVT drive consists mainly of one man - Mark Wadsworth. A glimmering light in a sea of darkness. I always wondered why Mark was in the Tories, but glad he is as he stands out there. Elsewhere he would blend in.
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.