Re: Land value UK
- The VOA AFAIK only makes frequent assessment with regards to those premises that are subject to business rates (commercial property). They are responsible for the valuations for council tax, but they haven't been done for a while.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:50 AM, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> > @Dave W Had a conversation with somebody at VoA yesterday.Nice bloke but
> > apparently they don't keep aggregate figures for the totality of UK land
> > values with subdivisions for agriculture, residential etc.
> Maybe try somebody different at VoA - like in the IT department who have
> some expertise on the databases they use. E.g. ask the nice bloke if maybe
> the IT department could help with the question.
> If they have numbers of land value (which I am pretty sure they do - how
> could they do the valuations?) for specific parcels and the numbers are "in
> the computes" (which they are), it is simply a matter of the most basic of
> database management.
> Another way to go about it is to find out if the database is available for
> "academic research purposes" (try saying it that way).
> For example, the state of Indiana didn't have/keep the aggregate figures
> for the assessments in the state (which by the way are down not by the
> state but by township (6 to 15 townships in 92 counties - do the math), but
> the IT guys were able to burn me two disks of the 3.5 millions parcels into
> a format (ascii, text delimited) - which allowed me to aggregate it myself.
> (cost by the way I think 12 dollars for shipping and handling, not all
> states are so nice (I also had some legislators helping me, at least, by
> way of me using their names. One a cousin, may he rest in peace and another
> married to a cousin.)
> Even in the days before computers, Steven Cord would just take a random
> sample (technically a mechanical sample - 3 parcel or every 7th page or
> whatever) and be able to make a good estimation. So the other way is to
> just get a random sample.
> This is a doable proposition and people are generally helpful as long as
> you are nice and they don't think you are a kook.
> By the way, I was curious about the origin of the word kook and stumbled
> upon wiki for crank: Recommended reading.
> a snippet from it:
> "According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks
> 1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and
> underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> 2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
> 3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> 4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate
> social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in
> anyone else's experience or opinions."
- --- 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