Re: [LandCafe] Re: Land value UK
- After WWII, Bevan boasted that he would solve the housing problem in six months. He aimed to build 200,000 houses in the year (a worthwhile figure as about 200,000 houses fell down every year.He failed.At the Tory conference, a band of young Turks forwarded a motion that, if elected, the Tories would build 300,000! The discomfiture of the Tory leaders was hilarious to see. Anyway, it was passed whereupon the leaders praised the young Turks even as they gulped.Some 65 years later, I noted that 144,000 homes are built in Britain, though I don't know what it is this year.I doubt that at the next election a potential number will be offered by either party. They have learned their lesson!But not the reason for the problem.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:11 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> > The UK is desperately short of homes -
> > like a few million or so. People do want
> > to live in the countryside.
> According to emptyhomes.com, you've got 920.000
> to fill up first, something which is easily
> corrected by you know what.
Most of these should have been bulldozed decades ago and are not fit for purpose. Flats over shops are now very much empty as people do not want to access their home via a small back entrance. The UK has the oldest, pokiest and least insulated housing stock in western Europe. A house these days is more than just walls and and roof.
Whole rows of boarded up terraced homes can be seen in some cities as the landlords leave and wait. The land values seem not to drop at all.
- --- 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