Re: Land value UK
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> @HP Your first sentence is so good ,it should enter generalThe planning system backed by high profile countryside groups, enviro nuts, etc, aids them.
> circulation.In the UK everybody half awake is aware that the
> landowning monopoloist/cartel developers are deliberately not
> building houses to satisfy demand as this would flood the market
> and crash prices ,for already built houses as well.
The selfbuild market in the UK is about 10-12%. Most of that is tearing down existing homes and rebuilding. In other countries it is about 60%. Self build doe not mean you build the house yourself. You get a plot, architect, builder, etc and do it your way. Some do help in the building.
This market is ripe for take off in the UK if land is made available. If every village in the UK expanded by 50 houses and every small town by a few thousand and so on. The numbers of homes built would be substantial. And all individual homes built by small companies, not developer look-alike ticky-tacky boxes.
But the Tory Party is funded by property developers. Approximately 80% of all homes built in the UK are built by around 20 companies. In no other country in the western world does such a monopoly exist. The sort of situation seen in banana republics.
An acre of agricultural land can be purchased for £2,000, a complete eco kit home for £25,000 or so can be got from Finland. Then look at house prices in the hundreds of thousands. Go figure.
> The only argument is how to get them to stop hoarding.I live in a block of 156 flats. The freeholder owns about 25% of the flats. At any one time 5 to 10% of the flats are empty - owned by the freeholder. A similar situation is in blocks around me.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> There is an enormous amount of urban land of all values which is presently held out of use at rack-rent (or higher) prices.It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch for decades. As long as the long-term economic growth rate exceeds the tax rate, owning land increases the owner's net worth, so there is no reason to take a chance by permitting productive use.
> Such holdings would becomeRents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.
> available to producers and other users with adoption of full land Rent
> collection and Rents would topple to a point where they would accurately
> reflect the advantage provided by the surrounding population.
> You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen toIt's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.
> call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.
> Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief thatNo, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.
> with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.
> I don't know where you got your land-value taxation ideas from, but you treat it as simply a good way to tax.My UIE proposal proves that claim false. LVT is essential to equal human rights.
> The real intention of collecting RentNo, the real intention is to restore the EQUAL RIGHTS of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, relieving the poverty of the less able by ensuring they have free, secure access to economic opportunity, and enabling the more able to rise as high as their productive contributions will carry them by relieving them of the burden of supporting the greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass in exorbitant luxury. I am much more aware of that intention than you, as your opposition to my UIE proposal shows.
> (popularly, land-value taxing) is to produce a genuine equality of
> conditions for all, replacing the present rigged economy which condemns the
> less able to poverty and the more able to a lifetime of paying rack-rent.
> The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towardsI do indeed.
> 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
> But, you probably know that.
-- Roy Langston