Scott Bergeson wrote:
>While the situation in London may differ, around
>here tax assessments are rather badly partitioned
>between land and buildings.
That is certainly a problem with estimating land rent based on assessments, but
offhand I can't think of any simple way to correct for it (however, I will
think about it). Here in BC, we have the BC Assessment Authority, one of
the most honest and accurate public assessment institutions in the world.
Yet there is still a significant discrepancy between the total land value
fraction of the assessments and the fraction implied by comparison of the
listed prices of vacant lots with those of improved properties.
>How do you figure currently tax-exempt holdings such
>as religious, non-profit and government facilities
Land rent is based on designated use: if no profit can be made from using the
land, it will yield no rent. It is a different matter if the current use is
less productive than the best and highest designated use. In such cases, one
would expect the less-productive current user to find land more suited to their
>Would your pastor expect a contribution
>of some of your exemption for the church or whatever
Perhaps, but only if the land was zoned for profitable use.
>How about for city hall? (Well-populated
>monasteries should have no problem, presuming this
>isn't restricted to voters.)
The proposed LVT exemption applies to every man, woman and child who is
resident in and a citizen of the LVT jurisdiction. City hall and all other
public facilities should record their land rent as a budget item for management
purposes, even though the money is just moved from one government account to
another. Potential land rents of such parcels should of course be taken into
account when planning decisions are made.
-- Roy Langston
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real
people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.