- ... Actually, I prefer Location Subsidy Repayment. People have a cultural attachment to the idea of owning land : the back garden, the family farm, the poorMessage 1 of 30 , Aug 20, 2013View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> As regards the Repayment we are at the point where you are referring to Land Subsidy Repayment while I am going back to Land Value Repayment.Actually, I prefer Location Subsidy Repayment. People have a cultural attachment to the idea of "owning land": the back garden, the family farm, the poor widow's home, blah, blah, blah. Better to leave the hot-button word alone.
> I feel the evader(s) would say in the case of LSR "Land Subsidy? What land subsidy? I have n't received any subsidy"Just explain how they have: they hold a location that enables them not only to access government services and infrastructure, but to charge others full market value for such access. Pound on the asset value increase they have been given, which far exceeds any taxes they've paid.
> while with LVR ,it would be impossible to say there were n't any land values which have increased mysteriously through no efforts of the owner.But lots of evasions are possible: "I already paid for the land value." "You want to punish people who have made intelligent investments." Blah, blah, blah. Better to identify it as a subsidy from the outset, and never let the discussion be shifted off that point.
> Though it might help if we spelt out Land Value Repayment or Land Subsidy Repayment as the initials would be confusing unexplained.At least until it was well known.
> I do feel we cannot duck confronting homeownerism head on ,however. It is the prevailing political ideology .We cannot opt out of the weather.I would prefer to defeat it by conceptual jiu-jitsu rather than tackle it head-on.
> As I said our opposition should be based on the offer of stable house prices and rising wages (or citizens incomes ,dividends etc).IMO we can finesse the goal of "stable house prices" by carefully managing the decline in land values to match increasing improvement value through new construction and renovation. Just use total residential real estate value as the relevant statistic, rather than tracking individual property values. It shouldn't take long for LSR to take 1T worth of housing consisting of 700G in land value and 300G in improvement value and reverse that ratio, at which point we would be well on track for full rent recovery.
> This we disagree on, unfortunately.
-- Roy Langston
- I m not sure what you mean by All Dave W s fears of Harry Pollard style straight-no-chaser LVT. I am a Georgist and therefore I put forward a GeorgistMessage 2 of 30 , Aug 21, 2013View SourceI'm not sure what you mean by "All Dave W's fears of Harry Pollard style straight-no-chaser LVT."I am a Georgist and therefore I put forward a Georgist interpretation of things. As such, I do not change my ideas because of political considerations. I am primarily interested in how things should be - not how they can be attained.I think that Dave is a first class Georgist who knows his stuff. However, he has to handle political considerations as best he can and he is good at it.However, in pressing for variations in the basic 100% full collection of Rent, one should be aware of the difficulty of proceeding further even if one gets the "variation".The effects that are desired are not likely to be seen without full collection or near full collection. So, proper collection of Rent - even if we get the "variation" - will become even more difficult to attain than it is now.I mostly fear it would become no more than just a better tax than some present exactions and its full potential would never be realized.Harry******************************
The Alumni Group
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Tujunga CA California
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:23:29 +0100
Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Subway + Non residential LVT
"IMO Monetary reform should probably come before LVT". Sure ,that way you could get a lot more money into circulation and make sure it doesn't go into land values by a blocking Mills' tax " from here on" in Martin Wolf's words. You don't need to enact any particular form of monetary reform: a Keynesian boost would suffice, probably best directed at drastically improving the State pension in the UK .This improvement in income would reconcile my generation of baby boomers' to their property being frozen, but not going down, in value in return for a guarantee of more income to spend in the shops where the older generation are most likely to spend to the hilt.
All Dave W's fears of Harry Pollard style straight-no-chaser LVT are addressed: nobody pays LVT while land prices stay steady amidst increased spending; there is a transfer of property at a not reduced price on inheritance; people's kids get cheap housing before the baby boomers die, a not inconsiderable benefit when you consider the unpaid child minding grandparents do to allow the parents to work off an inflated mortgage; also the poor widow gets a rest. (Churchill complained she was dragged into so many arguments in 1909 she needed the protection of laws against sweated labour.)
This proposal is a great deal more straightforward than either RL's or DW's and benefits by addressing the problem of the circulation of money. As has been demonstrated by the strained response to the predicament of Detroit on land café, there are those who believe all you have to do to ensure growth is provide cheap land and all the Opportunity for Liberty or whatever that goes with it. Not good enough. Detroit land is flat out with no signs of the private sector taking advantage of the abundant cheap labour.
You describe as garbage Dave Wetzel's "homestead allowance" (actually term once used in American bankruptcy to keep a roof over the family's head) but then extemporise an exemption of the first £I million of a house's land value, twice what Dave W initially proposed before coming round to exempting all residential land (and letting senior Labour Party figures know this was the Labour Land Campaign's new policy : news to them).Does n't add up.
"Land Subsidy Repayment" is worth considering. I proposed Land Value Repayment many years ago but it never caught on. "Subsidy" might do the trick.
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 22:44:10 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Subway
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
> Full LVT is the best policy.
LVT+UIE is the best policy -- +RPE as a transition measure, if rapid implementation is desired and feasible.
> But the UK's Labour Party have already announced that they will NOT
> introduce LVT if they form the next government in 2015.
Yes, well, we already know they have no ideas other than serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges, as proved by their active complicity in the evisceration of the British middle class for the profit of rich, greedy takers throughout the Blair-Brown era.
> They are following the Liberal Democrats in proposing a Mansion Tax on all homes worth more than Â£2m.
Which is guaranteed to fail, as already explained.
> They are also proposing that local authorities be given powers to levy a charge on residential land banks (i.e. land with planning permission for
> housing but kept idle and undeveloped for years). This will be easily
> ; avoided by developers and house builders acquiring land but not seeking
> planning permission for housing until ready to build in many years time. (A site opposite where I live has been empty for 25 years).
Right. They know very well their plan will shovel additional billions into the pockets of the parasitic landed aristocracy and gentry, and that is their only real intention.
> There have been 4 Labour Governments since WW2 and each one has proposed a development land tax.
I.e., not LVT but a tax on improvements to make sure the UK's housing stock remains an under-supplied, overpriced shambles.
> Dave Reed may be happy for the next Labour Government to adopt yet another disastrous Development Land Tax
He appears to deny it, and instead favors the little-better "sometime real soon now" Mill tax.
> but I'm looking for a second-best policy.
Why settle for second best, when the best (see above) is superior in every way?
> I'd welcome opinions but am now going to be abroad for a week and unlikely to be able to get online to respond.
IMO those who think LVT+UIE+RPE is not politically salable just haven't thought it through, and have too little confidence in ordinary voters' ability to judge where their interests lie WHEN THEY ARE INFORMED OF THE RELEVANT FACTS.
> Except for a few limited successes at local levels around the world, where
> a small amount of land rent has been collected (with beneficial results)
Japan's LVT-based economic "miracles" in the Meiji and post-war Showa eras were not local or small.
> and despite the correctness of our arguments, those of us advocating an
> Annual Land Value Tax (LVT) to replace taxes on production have totally
> failed to convince the mass of people, academics and political leaders
> around the world of the benefits (including social justice, sound
> economics, addressing climate change,
Careful. We must not hitch our wagon to that fading star.
> the housing problem and the
> elimination of poverty) that arise from the collection of the economic rent
> of land and other natural resources and applied to fund public services.
Probably because like Henry George and most other LVT advocates, you have not understood the absolute, crucial necessity of the UIE, and the RPE as a transition measure.
> It is not the purpose of this paper to postulate on the causes of our
> failure but here in the UK we have had to overcome the power of the
> landownersâ€ ™ lobby, the distortion of the teaching of economics and a
> hostile and ill-informed â€œconservativeâ€� press and media. We have also seen
> social changes whereby almost 70% of households are now freeholders of
> their own homes
The actual rate of homeownership is 68%, and that includes strata and leasehold ownership as well as mortgaged "freehold" ownership. Do not be deceived by the blandishments of the landed who pretend that owning improvements implies an identity of interests with those who own the land under them.
> and many others either aspire to purchase freeholds or to inherit
> over-inflated priced homes from their relatives.
First, evil forces its victims to participate in it in self-defense. Then it makes them dependent on it. Finally, it recruits them as its most passionate defenders.
Ordinary homeowners must be informed of the fact that they have been, and are being, robbed, cheated, and forcibly deprived of their rights without just compensation, and then tricked into believing they profit by that crime if they pay even more to buy back some of what has been stolen from them. Have we informed them of that fact? No? Then there is no need to postulate on the causes of our failure, because we already know the cause: not tel ling the truth.
> How can we neutralise the negative forces against us and persuade The British Labour Party
> to adopt an Annual Land Value Tax and then get the British electorate to vote for it?
LVT+UIE+RPE. And monetary reform.
> The Lib/Dems, and now Labour, advocate the Mansion Tax which although not
> ideal will, in practice, mostly fall upon the economic rent of residential
> properties worth over Â£2m. To be more practical the valuation for Mansion
> Tax should be on land value only and the starting figure should be no more
> than say Â£500k â€" leaving most residences (Â£500k plus building value) outside the scope of the Mansion Tax.
Exempt people, not property. That is absolutely crucial.
> The unusual financial difficulties that an incoming Government will face in
> 2015 and the current public outcry on tax avoidance also creates an opening
> for more creative thinking re taxation e.g. The Tax Justice Network, who
> have campaigned for many years for Government to close tax avoidance
> loopholes for business and especially multinationals also advocates LVT and
> there is a growing interest in new alternatives such as The Tobin Tax. The
> Labour front bench has a credibility problem as they intend to fund more
> public infrastructure, to reduce VAT and not to increase income tax or
> other taxes. At the present time Labour is also pledged to continue with
> unpopular cuts to repay the deficit.
While LVT+UIE enables massive cuts to the government spending on "poverty relief" and pensions that just goes into landowners' pockets. Why not start cutting the least justifiable spending?
> Given these contradictory pressures, I believe this opens up to us a unique
> opportunity to propose the principles of LVT to the Labour Movement and
> especially the Labour partyâ€™s front bench team.
Agreed. So, why abandon the principles of LVT for an inferior notion that is guaranteed to fail?
> We first need to realistically assess the likelihood of persuading the
> Labour Party to advocate full LVT in the next two years.
Have you tried telling them the truth? I.e., that the policies they currently advocate are 100% guaranteed to fail, while LVT+UIE+RPE plus monetary reform is guaranteed not only to succeed at the polls, but to make Britain Europe's leading economic power and the world's richest country within a single generation?
> 1. Householders (including te nants) worried about having to pay an
> ADDITIONAL tax because they don't see LVT replacing existing taxes as
> being credible as they don't trust politicians to reduce any taxes.
Answer: "We will reduce total taxes as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run in the next election."
The REASON politicians can't reduce taxes under the current system is that all the spending goes to landowners. Once you break free of that compulsory subsidy, reducing taxes becomes possible.
> 2. Economists and others claim you can't value land
That is a fatuous, cretinous lie disproved by every competent real estate appraiser every working day of his life.
Have you tried informing those who make that claim of that fact?
> and a single tax canâ€™t work.
We don't propose a single tax. That's just physiocratic-Georgist moonshine we have long since outgrown. What we propose is the elimination of arbitrary, unjust, destructive and evil taxes, and their replacement with a voluntary, just, and beneficial system of repaying the public treasury for taking publicly created value.
> 3. Homeowners worry about the loss of freehold value
Freehold value is an illusion for all who own only their own residences, be= cause they can't liquidate it: they have to live somewhere. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, try selling it and living like a millionaire on the proceeds. If you think owning an expensive house makes you rich, how much money do you have left at the end of the month after paying your mortgage, your income tax, sales tax, VAT, etc., etc.? Do you really think that paying 10K/yr in taxes and getting back 5K/yr in land rent so that others can pay little or no taxes and pocket 1M/yr in land rent is a good deal for you??
> (especially those approaching retirement with no or a little pension and scarce savings).
The UIE guarantees they won't need any savings, nor much of a pension, and does so at landlords' expense, not taxpayers' expense.
> 4. People with elderly relatives hoping to inherit their freehold property don't want home values to fall.
Greedy scum. Forget 'em.
> 5. New mortgagees are worried that they will have to continue to pay high repayments on their loans and fork out for LVT as well.
UIE+RPE removes that threat.
> 6. If council tax (CT) is abolished and replaced by LVT then freeholders
> will save on their CT but pay their existing mortgage plus LVT
Minus UIE+RPE, remember. While the past errors of the physiocrats and Georgists may be understandable, nowadays no one could be morally, economically, or politically naive enough to propose LVT without UIE+RPE.
> but their
> neighbour next door will save on their CT pay their current rent but their landlord (the landowner) will pick up the LVT bill.
That sounds right. Why would anyone but a greedy, evil parasite or a lickspittle of greedy, evil parasites want to keep honest working people poor in order to make rich, greedy takers even richer?
> 7. The poor widow, (income poor-asset rich problem) is always being thrown up as an objection to LVT.
The UIE ensures that she suffers no real hardship, and there are many other happy alternatives available to her to use her location more productively, such as taking in lodgers, renting out garden or parking space, renting out daytime space to a daycare, etc. The local Office of Poor Widow Assistance can help her identify the best solution. In extremis, compassionate deferments are available.
The point is, the poor widow's incentive to seek accommodation better suited to her needs and means is a BENEFIT of LVT, enabling the free market's movement of resources into the most productive hands. Never tolerate the despicable fabrications of people who claim to spea k for the poor widow. ASK THE WIDOW HERSELF if she would prefer that her children and grandchildren live their whole lives in poverty and desperation, enslaved by landowners and mortgage lenders, so that she need not suffer the inconvenience of moving to more suitable accommodation (or have one of the grandchildren move in with her, along with their UIE), or if she would rather live in a more suitable place, so that her children and grandchildren could enjoy their human rights to liberty, and live fulfilling lives in a free, just, and prosperous society. And don't let her or anyone else get away with pretending there is any other alternative.
> In the Governmentâ€™s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value tax,
Which would be microscopic compared to the complexity and cost of administering any other tax of comparable revenue capacity...
> and more importantly, the likelihood of a significant number of losers,
Who very much deserve to lose, but give millions to the Tories...
> with many council tax payers facing higher tax bills and asset rich cash poor groups
> (e.g. pensioners) being particularly hard hit, means that such a proposal is not tenable.
"Asset rich but cash poor" just means, "unproductively hoarding valuable resou rces." The facts of economics and history are going to rub that evil, lying sack of $#!+'s nose in what's "tenable."
> The Government therefore has no intention of introducing a land value tax at this time.â€�***
> Therefore, I believe we need to recommend an alternative strategy to full
> LVT if we are to see a new Labour government avoid yet another form of development land tax.
And I've provided it: LVT+UIE+RPE. Just tell the truth, and expose the lies. NEVER let despicable, lying scum get away with rationalizing privilege, justifying injustice and excusing evil.
> Whenever I advocate LVT to Labour politicians invariably the questions of
> â€œthe poor widowâ€�, â€œhow will this affect my voters?â€� â€œopposition of the
> popular pressâ€� and â€œhow do we successfully persuade householders to vote
> for a tax on their own homes?â€� or put more glibly â€" â€œHow do we persuade
> turkeys to vote for Xmas?â€� arise.
Have you asked ME? I can show you how. I can even show you how to establish a complete, accurately valued cadastre in three months, from a standing start.
> We do have adequate policy answers: there are very few poor people in valuable properties,
More to the point, there are NO poor people WHATEVER, anywhere in the world, or at any time in human history, who OWN valuable properties. We need to get the cretinous and dishonest "income, not wealth, is the measure of wealth," garbage out of people's heads.
> widows can move, take in lodgers or defer payment,
Right. It would be a trivial matter to establish a government office of advisors devoted to helping the poor widows either use their locations more productively or find accommodation better suited to their needs and means.
> taxes on their incomes and trade (VAT) will be reduced.
And they will certainly have their UIEs and RPEs, without which no one in the 21st century with any brains would propose LVT.
> Householders can be given a homestead allowance to reduce the impact of LVT,
No, of course they can't. We have to get that kind of ridiculous, self-defeating garbage out of people's heads once and for all. The only permissible kind of exemption for properties is the RPE, which is a limited and self-extinguishing transition measure. If we ever want to succeed, homestead allowances, broad "occupied residential land" exemptions, etc. have to be taken permanently and unconditionally off the table, becau se they are only ways to guarantee that LVT fails.
> and other taxes on incomes and trade could be cut etc. etc.
No, they WILL be ABOLISHED. That is absolutely crucial. We must be able to show people, including homeowners, comparisons proving they will be far better off with LVT, and then make good on them.
> However, none of these appear to be satisfactory to most voters or Labour politicians
Have you tried identifying the relevant facts clearly, as I do?
> and we have no adequate answer to hostility in the popular press.
Sure we do: identify their lies as such loudly, publicly, and often.
> In recent discussions on the Mansion Tax, the press have described
> deferral (or rollover) of the Mansion Tax as yet another inheritance tax
"That is of course a stupid lie. What stupid lie will the press come up with next? Are estates' payments of the deceased's income tax arrears also 'yet another inheritance tax'? Whose interests is the press serving by constantly telling such stupid lies?"
> and in Scotland, Green Party proposals for LVT were described in newspapers
> as â€œa tax on your gardenâ€�.
"This newspaper has apparently decided it is better for HM government to steal the honest wages of the working poor by taxing them away than to recover the publicly created value of the Duke of Westminster's vast 'back g ardens' for the purposes and benefit of the public that created it."
> In addition, few voters believe politicians
> would use LVT to replace other taxes but it would just become an additional
> burden for voters to pay.
That's easy: "We will reduce total taxation as a fraction of GDP by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election. We will reduce the total tax burden on at least 90% of resident homeowners who own only their own homes by the end of our first majority mandate, or we will not run any candidates in the next election."
> Consequently, if we are to be successful in introducing LVT in the next
> seven years, I think it is incumbent upon us to rethink our message and
> offer the Labour front bench a credible form of LVT (credible in as much it
> is acceptable to them but works in harmony and not in opposition to our
> understanding of the theory of economic rent).
It is a mistake to imagine that the Labour front bench got there by being interested in liberty, justice or prosperity. They are servants of privilege, and have no interest in, or understanding of, anything but serving privilege and seeking countervailing privileges.
> The abolition of slavery did
> n ot commence with the demand to free all slaves i mmediately but was
> eventually successful following over 100 years of arguments to first outlaw
> the slave trade and then to abolish slavery itself. Equally, the transfer
> of countries from rule by the British Empire to self-determination did not
> happen in one fell swoop but took over two hundred years from 1783 with the
> loss of the United States.
Then maybe it's time to start identifying the facts, as I do.
> Similarly, perhaps we should be seeking an immediate partial land reform that works in harmony with our ultimate concept of LVT
What's wrong with eliminating taxation of improvements and taxing only land value on a revenue-neutral basis? That way, we can establish our abolition-not-addition bona fides.
> rather continuing in the land value tax promotion of the past 130 years,
> arguing only for pure LVT and achieving almost nothing.
I've explained how to fix that.
> This dichotomy is demonstrated by the
> debate on Mansion Tax where the purists on LVT argue we should keep the
> faith and reject a tax on buildings even though the Mansion Tax will in
> practice fall mainly on the rental value of land of these valuable homes.
BUT IT GETS THE INCENTIVES WRONG, which is why it w ill and must FAIL.
> Therefore, I am proposing that at this unique time in UK history we suggest
> to Labour politicians that they promise at the next general election to
> introduce a partial LVT to replace the Business Rates (perhaps called a
> Location Benefit Charge (LBC)?).
How about "Land Subsidy Repayment"? That's how to frame the debate. Don't talk about a tax. Talk about requiring rich, greedy parasites to repay the subsidy they are being given in return for nothing.
> This LBC would consist of an annual Land
> Value Tax (that is a percentage tax on the annual land rental value, based
> on the optimum permitted use of each site) introduced on *ALL* land except
> occupied family homes.
Requiring occupancy is at least a baby step in the right direction: exempting people, not property. The necessity of verifying occupancy implies maintenance and use of records of residential address, so why not just do the right thing from the outset, and give every resident citizen an equal exemption? It would be a trivial matter to set the exemption amount and tax rate at such levels that typical homeowners would pay little or no LSR, which is the putative intention of exempting occupied residences. But the UIE would have enormous additional b enefits, such as reducing housing prices and enabling government to slash the subsidy to landowners that it pays in the form of income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.
> The exemption would apply to all occupied homes
> irrespective of tenure whether it be freehold, tenant, shared ownership,
> leasehold or co-operative ownership.
Again, that is grossly inequitable. The proposed occupied residential land exemption subsidizes those who own the most expensive residential land occupied at the highest per capita land value, at the expense of tenants and those who own the cheapest land and occupy it at the lowest per capita land value.
> Of course, parks, playing fields, and sites below the margin would be zero value for LVT purposes.
What's the tax status of church properties in the UK? Are they tax-free, or taxed at negligible value?
> Poor hill farmers and small market gardeners would
> not pay LVT on their homes and their farm fields are usually situated on
> very low value land and therefore the savings they will make on the other
> tax reductions will probably far exceed their low LVT payments.
Especially as the UIE provides them with free, secure access to enough of that low-value land to make a living.
> The only sites excluded from LVT would be sites with homes that are
> currently occupied and paying council tax. (â€œOccupationâ€� would allow for
> homes where the family are away on holiday or reasonable periods of work).
I.e., it would be based on residence of record. So if you are going to use that data anyway, why not use it properly, to administer a UIE?
> Council tax would continue to be paid on these homes
Council Tax is an abomination. WHY NOT JUST DO THE RIGHT THING?
> but we need to remember that both Labour and the Lib/Dems are already pledged to introduce
> the new mansion tax on all homes worth over Â£2m. As stated above the
> valuation for Mansion Tax on homes (land and building) worth over Â£2m
> should only fall on the land value, for why would we want to penalise
> owners who wish to improve their homes?
Why would we want to subsidize owners who occupy the most land value per resident, as the "occupied residential land exemption" does?
> Residential use represents about 2% of land area in this country, so
> partial LVT would still apply to circa 98% of land.
But well under half by value...
> This approach would mean that LVT as we know it would fall on a ll second
> homes, all empty homes, all under-occupied flats owned by overseas
> investors, all valuable town centre commercial and retail sites,
> out-of-town retail supermarkets and stores (together with their car parks),
> industrial estates, residential/commercial sites with planning permissions
> but yet to be built on and all land banks, empty and underused buildings
> and all brownfield sites.
> All land under new homes in the future, built on
> land already paying LVT, would continue to pay LVT and not council tax.
Ah. I was wondering if the necessity of that provision was appreciated.
Of course, that means there would be a scramble to "occupy" all the unoccupied residential sites while the LVT enabling legislation wound its way through Parliament....
> In fact LVT would apply to all the UKâ€™s land area, except occupied homes
> paying council tax at the time LVT was introduced.
Problem: that means that without the RPE, recent buyers of the taxed land (and their mortgage lenders) will be hit hard as the subsidy value they were counting on disappears.
> Admittedly, we would â€œloseâ€� a portion of LVT income, as much of the 98%
> would be low value land operating at or below the margin and most
> residential sites have a relatively high value.
You would lose about half the revenue obtainable under LVT+UIE+RPE, with the added disadvantage of having to continue shoveling billions in tax revenue into landowners' pockets through income support, poverty relief, pensions, etc.
> This approach might even encourage speculative investment away form commercial land but onto
> peopleâ€™s homes, but this could be mitigated by revaluing Council Tax values
> and adding more higher bands to Council Tax. But I suggest, the approach I
> am suggesting here could be the most political feasible one at this time.
Political feasibility is largely a function of what people have been told, or permitted to know. They have not been told or permitted to know the central facts identified in this message. Start telling them the truth, and liberty, justice and prosperity will become a lot more politically feasible.
> Benefits of Business Rates applied to land values (Location Benefit Charge)
> would be that we will have proven the mechanism for introducing LVT works.
> i.e. the land can be valued, landowners can be identified, LVT can be
> introduced and administered at far lower costs than existing taxes > (remember David Gaukeâ€™s letter above where he stated â€" *â€œIn the
> Governmentâ€™s view the complexity and cost of administering a land value
> taxâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.. means that such a proposal is not tenableâ€�*, we will have proven
> politicians can be trusted to reduce or even abolish taxes on production,
> that with even a partial LVT unemployment falls and wages do rise naturally
> with businesses prospering and seeking more workers.
While real wages (especially after-tax) should rise, don't count on nominal wages rising unless you reform the monetary system to separate money creation from land speculation. IMO monetary reform should probably come before LVT. Otherwise, the deflationary effect of declining costs and lack of debt-money creation could kill the economy despite LVT.
> Remember the last 2010 general election. To help fund the new CrossRail
> deep broad-gauge underground railway line across Greater London, Labour was
> proposing to introduce a Business Rate Supplement on all London businesses
> with a rateable value of over Â£50,000. If this had applied to homes there
> would have been uproar but as it did not - there was no controversy
> whats oever, and these contributions are being paid today to fund CrossRail.
It's true that homeownerism makes it easier to tax anything but housing; however, as explained above, the UIE+RPE removes ordinary homeowners' excuses for opposing LVT.
> If we propose a non-residential LVT that excludes peopleâ€™s homes we will
> avoid all the most obvious attacks and especially the rich landowners
> hiding behind the skirts of the â€œpoor widowâ€�. There could be no garden tax
> scare stories and Labour could highlight the unfair land distribution
> represented by aristocrats, such as The Duke of Westminster, who owns and
> controls much of Mayfair and Belgravia.
If that's the aim, then why not just restrict the exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing? It's easy to prove LVT can't be passed on to tenants, and the elimination of Council Tax on improvements will reduce rental prices. Ordinary homeowners know their back gardens aren't worth £1M, and the "poor widows" who have land worth more than £1M under their houses tend to have "Countess," "Duchess," or the like in front of their names. Of course, under this "resident-owned" exemption system, conversion of housing to owner-occupation would not take taxed land off the LVT rolls, just as under the proposed "occupied residential land" exemption.
> When fighting a war a good general picks the most favourable ground on
> which to fight â€" thus leaving his enemy at a disadvantage. Neither does he
> expect to win the battle with a full frontal assault on all dispositions of
> the enemy. A Napoleon or a Wellington uses strategy and tactics to often
> marshall his strongest forces to pick his enemyâ€™s weakest spot on which to
> mobilise maximum force and by breaking through, dishearten and depress the
> enemyâ€™s soldiersâ€™ fighting spirit to win the battle â€" and perhaps
> ultimately the war.
Interesting analogy. Exactly what do you consider the enemy's weakest point? The burden on economic activity posed by current taxes? The fact that land value is the measure of the net subsidy to the landowner, which is paid for by those taxes? Poverty? Inequality? Unemployment? Economic stagnation? Unaffordable housing? Land bubbles and crashes? Budget deficits? The blatant, exorbitant parasitism of the landed aristocracy? The fact that Britons have no right to access opportunity or even to exist in their native country? I would suggest that by declining to tax the value of vast landed estates just because they happen to have tenants living on them, you have already relinquished the high ground, and passed up the opportunity to attack one of the enemy's weakest points.
> We have a battle on our hands, the 2015 general election may only be our
> latest skirmish in a long war that has waged since the 19th Century,
Since the fourth millennium BCE, at least.
> but I believe, with the Location Benefit Charge we can spike the enemies guns,
> win a limited success and go on to achieve 100% LVT in future elections.
Please consider the superior advantages of the two alternative options I have described here: broad LVT+UIE+RPE; and restriction of the residential exemption to the first £1M of land value under owner-occupied housing +UIE+RPE.
> Finally, consider our position in 2020 â€" seven years from now and five years after the next election. > Where do you want us to be?
In a position to DARE other parties to run against the greatest public policy success in recorded history.
> Ideally, we would want full LVT on all sites. But if full LVT is not
> possible, (and past experience of Labour Governments, even with massive
> majorities in 1945 and 1997 suggests itâ€™s not) which would we prefer â€" no
> attempt to collect any land rent (and possibly yet another development land
> tax) - or LVT being collected on circa 98% of the UKâ€™s land area?
IMO you need to determine exactly where the resistance lies, and neutralize it. Whenever anyone in the Labour Party expresses opposition to LVT, do not hesitate to ask them, incredulously, "Why do you demand that we force working people to subsidize the rich, greedy parasites who finance the Tories? Are you a Tory mole or something?"
-- Roy Langston