That Lunancy from the Greens in Full...
Discussion
otolith said:
Article said:
Greens 'share the view' of far-Left party
Amazing! Red on Red luv-in.
andy43 said:
Full list of 'policies' here ----> http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/
Just some highlights -
Ban new out-of-town shopping centres with any car parking other than disabled spaces. Eh? Seriously?
Immigration NOT skill-based - the floodgates will not only be opened but removed and recycled to make yurts for the homeless.
A Code for Sustainable Food - all gubbermint-purchased food to be free range/eco-loony/non-nuclear/hippy-free.
Move towards a plan of shops within 15 minutes walk of every house. That's every house. Everywhere.
Legalise membership of terrorist organisations. They're not terrorists, they're just very naughty boys.
Annual land tax payable on all land (cheap rates for farmland) whether houses are occupied, derelict or not. That'll sort the housing 'crisis' then.
La-la
I'd like to see a land value tax.Just some highlights -
Ban new out-of-town shopping centres with any car parking other than disabled spaces. Eh? Seriously?
Immigration NOT skill-based - the floodgates will not only be opened but removed and recycled to make yurts for the homeless.
A Code for Sustainable Food - all gubbermint-purchased food to be free range/eco-loony/non-nuclear/hippy-free.
Move towards a plan of shops within 15 minutes walk of every house. That's every house. Everywhere.
Legalise membership of terrorist organisations. They're not terrorists, they're just very naughty boys.
Annual land tax payable on all land (cheap rates for farmland) whether houses are occupied, derelict or not. That'll sort the housing 'crisis' then.
La-la
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
turbobloke said:
Personally I have no particular objection to the Green take on breastfeeding but there is minimal tolerable content in the manifesto alongside a surfeit of total lunacy. Do you seriously think that if there's a sniff of power that only the one or two benign bits will get implemented? The entire offering, as an option to an informed thinking electorate, is barking mad.
I fear my half arsed defence of some of their policies and a desire to see them not misrepresented might have given the impression that I think them having power would be a good idea.I think they have many members who have a tenuous grip on reality. They seem to have just put in everything with little quality control. At least they've toned down the anti GM food and animal testing rhetoric this time round. Maybe they'll eventually drop enough loony stuff that I could actually vote for them but I'm not holding my breath.
hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
Personally I have no particular objection to the Green take on breastfeeding but there is minimal tolerable content in the manifesto alongside a surfeit of total lunacy. Do you seriously think that if there's a sniff of power that only the one or two benign bits will get implemented? The entire offering, as an option to an informed thinking electorate, is barking mad.
They seem to have just put in everything with little quality control. At least they've toned down the anti GM food and animal testing rhetoric this time round. Maybe they'll eventually drop enough loony stuff that I could actually vote for them but I'm not holding my breath....but not when it comes to "Frankenstein GM food" or poisonous fracking.
Andy Zarse said:
hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
Personally I have no particular objection to the Green take on breastfeeding but there is minimal tolerable content in the manifesto alongside a surfeit of total lunacy. Do you seriously think that if there's a sniff of power that only the one or two benign bits will get implemented? The entire offering, as an option to an informed thinking electorate, is barking mad.
They seem to have just put in everything with little quality control. At least they've toned down the anti GM food and animal testing rhetoric this time round. Maybe they'll eventually drop enough loony stuff that I could actually vote for them but I'm not holding my breath....but not when it comes to "Frankenstein GM food" or poisonous fracking.
turbobloke said:
Fracking was voted through apparently, great news for the country and a step in the right direction i.e. away from the Green Party manifesto.
?????Tory whips, fearing a rebellion from MPs in seats in Lancashire which is due to be fracking hotspot, caved-in and accepted Labour amendments that will all but stop the controversial drilling industry unless strict conditions are met.
steveatesh said:
sidicks said:
Efbe said:
Thinking a bit more about the green paryt, I am becoming less and less anti-green.
Yes many of these policies are ridiculous, but many have some semblance of credibility in them.
I understand where they are trying to get to, even if many of these policies would be unworkable or just plain daft.
however a vote for Green wouldn't be a vote for them to win really, at best it would give them a chance to be in a coalition.
at worst it would put them in a comfortable position above UKPI and the LDs in which they have to revise their policies so that all of them make sense and are workable.
Though I wouldn't vote for them currently I would be interested to see televised debates with them.
Then against I am in a very conservative seat with 4th place in 2010 going to BNP with UKIP and Greens trailing them.
Feel free to share any of them...Yes many of these policies are ridiculous, but many have some semblance of credibility in them.
I understand where they are trying to get to, even if many of these policies would be unworkable or just plain daft.
however a vote for Green wouldn't be a vote for them to win really, at best it would give them a chance to be in a coalition.
at worst it would put them in a comfortable position above UKPI and the LDs in which they have to revise their policies so that all of them make sense and are workable.
Though I wouldn't vote for them currently I would be interested to see televised debates with them.
Then against I am in a very conservative seat with 4th place in 2010 going to BNP with UKIP and Greens trailing them.
http://voteforpolicies.org.uk
turns out I am 50% Green , which came as quite a shock to me!
I must say however that going through all of the policy groupings for Economy really difficult, in that I didn't fully agree with any party!
For all the others it was a close call between at least 2 or 3, but seriously the Economy policies suck
powerstroke said:
turbobloke said:
Fracking was voted through apparently, great news for the country and a step in the right direction i.e. away from the Green Party manifesto.
Yes but with so many onerous conditions its never going to get off the ground or should that be underground!!These documents below form part of the application submitted from Cuadrilla Elswick Limited
Waste Application Forms (PDF, 2MB)
Installation Application Forms (PDF, 2MB)
Amended Installation Application Form Part F1 (PDF, 1KB)
Groundwater Application Forms (PDF, 2MB)
Application Supporting Documents Contents List (PDF, 800KB)
Application Supporting Documents (PDF, 7MB)
RSR Application Forms (PDF, 2MB)
RSR Supporting Documents Contents List (PDF, 400KB)
RSR Supporting Documents (PDF, 3MB)
Non Technical Summary (PDF, 500KB)
These documents below form the Environmental Statement submitted to support the application from Cuadrilla Elswick Limited.
Environmental Statement (PDF, 26MB)
Non Technical Summary (PDF, 2MB)
Figures (PDF, 3MB)
Scheme Parameters (PDF, 8MB)
Scoping Report (PDF, 3MB)
Scoping Opinion (PDF,11MB)
Environmental Management Plan (PDF,1MB)
Air Quality (PDF, 1MB)
Archaeology (PDF, 3MB)
GHG Emissions (PDF, 300KB)
Habitat Survey (PDF, 5MB)
Ornithological Report (PDF, 8MB)
Breeding Birds (PDF, 3MB)
BAT Report (PDF, 9MB)
Badger Survey (PDF, 1MB)
Water Vole Report (PDF, 3MB)
Amphibian Survey (PDF, 3MB)
Array Sites Summary Report (PDF, 10MB)
Pond Survey (PDF, 2MB)
Hydrogeology (PDF, 7MB)
Induced Seismicity (PDF, 3MB)
Land Use (PDF, 1MB)
Landscape and Visual Amenity (PDF, 12MB)
Lighting (PDF, 3MB)
Noise (PDF, 2MB)
Resource and Waste (PDF, 400KB)
Exploration Works (PDF, 10MB)
Monitoring Works (PDF, 6MB)
Water Resources (PDF, 2MB)
Analysis (PDF, 500KB)
These documents below form the Planning Application submitted to support the application from Cuadrilla Elswick Limited.
Planning Exploration Works (PDF, 130KB)
Planning Exploration Works Appendices (PDF, 3MB)
Planning Exploration Works Signed (PDF, 350KB)
Planning Exploration Works Notice (PDF, 1MB)
Planning Exploration Works Statement (PDF, 3MB)
Planning Exploration Works Plans (PDF, 3MB)
Planning Monitoring Works (PDF, 130KB)
Planning Monitoring Works Appendices (PDF, 400KB)
Planning Monitoring Works Signed (PDF, 300KB)
Planning Notice Monitoring Works (PDF, 2MB)
Planning Statement Monitoring Works (PDF, 3MB)
Planning Monitoring Works Plans (PDF, 8MB)
Flood Risk Assessment (PDF, 1MB)
Statement of Community Involvement (PDF, 3MB)
Appendix A-F (PDF, 2MB)
Appendix G (PDF, 30MB)
Appendix H (PDF, 300KB)
Appendix I (PDF, 20MB)
Appendix J (PDF, 250KB)
Appendix K (PDF, 24MB)
Appendix L-O (PDF, 5MB)
Appendix P (PDF, 12MB)
Appendix Q-T (PDF, 4MB)
Appendix U (PDF, 4MB)
Appendix V (PDF, 9MB)
Appendix W-BB (PDF, 4MB)
Utilities Statement (PDF, 4MB)
Halb said:
I'd like to see a land value tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
Makes sense to me - definitely one Labour should adopt. There are stirrings within the party. Andy Burnham was proposing it as part of his leadership campaign.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
http://www.labourland.org/
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/01/29/if-labour-wan...
Also a Liberal policy I think (although you wouldn't know it)
edh said:
Halb said:
I'd like to see a land value tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
Makes sense to me - definitely one Labour should adopt. There are stirrings within the party. Andy Burnham was proposing it as part of his leadership campaign.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
http://www.labourland.org/
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/01/29/if-labour-wan...
Also a Liberal policy I think (although you wouldn't know it)
Article said:
Today we see that most of the arguments in favour of LVT rest on a few axioms that are either highly questionable or outright wrong.
First, it is assumed that land ownership does not fulfil any economic function and that, therefore, all income received from owning land is basically unjustified, even unjustifiable. In order to reach this conclusion the supporters of LVT since David Ricardo have divided land rents into rents that derive from the land itself and rents that derive from the improvements done to this land. For example, if one cultivated a piece of land or built a house on it, then such investment would – even in the eyes of LVT supporters – justify an income. But the income that simply flows from the ‘indestructible powers of the soil’ (Ricardo) would not.
In practice, however, one could hardly ever separate the incomes from land and from improvements to the land. It would take a government agency and some highly questionable assumptions to determine which part of the value of the land was ‘justified’ and which was ‘unearned’ and thus taxable. But worse than that, modern economic analysis has moved beyond the old Ricardian land value theory and concludes that each factor of production will receive its marginal product. This means that land does not receive the residual value of all economic activity, but capital and labour equally receive value according to what they have contributed.
There is a more fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the supporters of LVT. They assume, implicitly or even explicitly, that landowners do not perform an economic function. Their perception of landowners is that they do not contribute the least to the economy, yet at the same time they reap large profits from owning their land. From this perception it is not far to the claim that their allegedly undeserved profits from land should be taxed away.
Closer inspection, however, reveals that landowners perform a number of valuable economic tasks. Like the owners of any other factor of production, landowners have to make frequent decisions on what use to make of their property. They decide in which way to utilise their land, which could mean to keep land idle. For one, there is much more land than there is labour to keep all land in use all the time. Secondly, it can be necessary at times to keep land from the market and wait for a better opportunity to bring it back into use, for example when there is a chance to develop a larger area. These decisions have to be made, and they have to be made by someone who bears the economic consequences.
This is the task of the landowner who accepts the residual risk and takes the opportunity costs of withholding land from its most valuable unrealised economic potential. In many ways, the role of the landowners resembles that of entrepreneur-investors in other markets. Like any other investor they have to allocate scarce resources over time and ultimately direct them to their most productive uses. To take this role from them by means of taxing the value of their property means creating a distortion in the market as landowners would be unable to make independent decisions about their property. It resembles a kind of central planning in the land market.
People owning land should be treated like people owning other forms of capital. Owning a factory, money in a bank account or a plot of land should thus not be taxed on their respective values, but on the actual income – not a hypothetical income – generated from them. The proper tax for this is the income tax. An additional land value tax would be both unnecessary and undesirable. Besides, it would not fit into our general approach to taxation. In our current tax system people are usually not taxed for the resources they own but for the income they make from these resources.
For example, you would not be punished if you decided to keep your money in a money sock or a piggy bank instead of directing it to a high-interest investment. You would only be taxed once your capital yields an income. Thus the capital owner is free to decide how to use his resources, even if that means running the risk of not making the most of them. In a market economy with individual autonomy, however, this is something that has to be accepted. It is the general principle of a market economy with private property rights that property owners are free to make their own decisions.
As we have seen, in a market in which landowners make decisions about land uses, an LVT would have severely negative economic side effects. Yet in Britain, land-use decisions are not only made by landowners, but also by planners. In effect this means that landowners would often not even be able to make the most of their land, but they are restricted to what planners have allowed them to do. But when it then comes to imposing an LVT on these landowners, on what value should this tax be based? On the current use value, on the use allowed by the plan, or on some fictional use regardless of what is currently permitted? Once again, an LVT would turn out to be a source of extreme legal uncertainty – and it would be difficult to implement, practically.
In addition to all these economic difficulties, there is a further moral complication to LVT. As the supporters of LVT claim, the tax should be levied on the intrinsic value of a site. But it turns out that such values often depend on the surroundings of the plot and not only on the plot itself. There is no purely intrinsic value, especially when it comes to land in the cities. In other words, changes made by your neighbours will affect the value of your property. If your neighbour builds a polluting factory, your land value and thus your LVT will fall. If your neighbour, however, opens a theme park or if a new tube line stops in front of your door, your land value will increase and with it the tax you would have to pay on it. So in other words, the tax one has to pay does not actually depend solely on one’s own property positions, let alone one’s financial situation, but on the consequences of other people’s actions. Surely, such a system of taxation cannot be regarded as fair or just.
First, it is assumed that land ownership does not fulfil any economic function and that, therefore, all income received from owning land is basically unjustified, even unjustifiable. In order to reach this conclusion the supporters of LVT since David Ricardo have divided land rents into rents that derive from the land itself and rents that derive from the improvements done to this land. For example, if one cultivated a piece of land or built a house on it, then such investment would – even in the eyes of LVT supporters – justify an income. But the income that simply flows from the ‘indestructible powers of the soil’ (Ricardo) would not.
In practice, however, one could hardly ever separate the incomes from land and from improvements to the land. It would take a government agency and some highly questionable assumptions to determine which part of the value of the land was ‘justified’ and which was ‘unearned’ and thus taxable. But worse than that, modern economic analysis has moved beyond the old Ricardian land value theory and concludes that each factor of production will receive its marginal product. This means that land does not receive the residual value of all economic activity, but capital and labour equally receive value according to what they have contributed.
There is a more fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the supporters of LVT. They assume, implicitly or even explicitly, that landowners do not perform an economic function. Their perception of landowners is that they do not contribute the least to the economy, yet at the same time they reap large profits from owning their land. From this perception it is not far to the claim that their allegedly undeserved profits from land should be taxed away.
Closer inspection, however, reveals that landowners perform a number of valuable economic tasks. Like the owners of any other factor of production, landowners have to make frequent decisions on what use to make of their property. They decide in which way to utilise their land, which could mean to keep land idle. For one, there is much more land than there is labour to keep all land in use all the time. Secondly, it can be necessary at times to keep land from the market and wait for a better opportunity to bring it back into use, for example when there is a chance to develop a larger area. These decisions have to be made, and they have to be made by someone who bears the economic consequences.
This is the task of the landowner who accepts the residual risk and takes the opportunity costs of withholding land from its most valuable unrealised economic potential. In many ways, the role of the landowners resembles that of entrepreneur-investors in other markets. Like any other investor they have to allocate scarce resources over time and ultimately direct them to their most productive uses. To take this role from them by means of taxing the value of their property means creating a distortion in the market as landowners would be unable to make independent decisions about their property. It resembles a kind of central planning in the land market.
People owning land should be treated like people owning other forms of capital. Owning a factory, money in a bank account or a plot of land should thus not be taxed on their respective values, but on the actual income – not a hypothetical income – generated from them. The proper tax for this is the income tax. An additional land value tax would be both unnecessary and undesirable. Besides, it would not fit into our general approach to taxation. In our current tax system people are usually not taxed for the resources they own but for the income they make from these resources.
For example, you would not be punished if you decided to keep your money in a money sock or a piggy bank instead of directing it to a high-interest investment. You would only be taxed once your capital yields an income. Thus the capital owner is free to decide how to use his resources, even if that means running the risk of not making the most of them. In a market economy with individual autonomy, however, this is something that has to be accepted. It is the general principle of a market economy with private property rights that property owners are free to make their own decisions.
As we have seen, in a market in which landowners make decisions about land uses, an LVT would have severely negative economic side effects. Yet in Britain, land-use decisions are not only made by landowners, but also by planners. In effect this means that landowners would often not even be able to make the most of their land, but they are restricted to what planners have allowed them to do. But when it then comes to imposing an LVT on these landowners, on what value should this tax be based? On the current use value, on the use allowed by the plan, or on some fictional use regardless of what is currently permitted? Once again, an LVT would turn out to be a source of extreme legal uncertainty – and it would be difficult to implement, practically.
In addition to all these economic difficulties, there is a further moral complication to LVT. As the supporters of LVT claim, the tax should be levied on the intrinsic value of a site. But it turns out that such values often depend on the surroundings of the plot and not only on the plot itself. There is no purely intrinsic value, especially when it comes to land in the cities. In other words, changes made by your neighbours will affect the value of your property. If your neighbour builds a polluting factory, your land value and thus your LVT will fall. If your neighbour, however, opens a theme park or if a new tube line stops in front of your door, your land value will increase and with it the tax you would have to pay on it. So in other words, the tax one has to pay does not actually depend solely on one’s own property positions, let alone one’s financial situation, but on the consequences of other people’s actions. Surely, such a system of taxation cannot be regarded as fair or just.
turbobloke said:
edh said:
Halb said:
I'd like to see a land value tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
Makes sense to me - definitely one Labour should adopt. There are stirrings within the party. Andy Burnham was proposing it as part of his leadership campaign.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
http://www.labourland.org/
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/01/29/if-labour-wan...
Also a Liberal policy I think (although you wouldn't know it)
Article said:
Today we see that most of the arguments in favour of LVT rest on a few axioms that are either highly questionable or outright wrong.
First, it is assumed that land ownership does not fulfil any economic function and that, therefore, all income received from owning land is basically unjustified, even unjustifiable. In order to reach this conclusion the supporters of LVT since David Ricardo have divided land rents into rents that derive from the land itself and rents that derive from the improvements done to this land. For example, if one cultivated a piece of land or built a house on it, then such investment would – even in the eyes of LVT supporters – justify an income. But the income that simply flows from the ‘indestructible powers of the soil’ (Ricardo) would not.
In practice, however, one could hardly ever separate the incomes from land and from improvements to the land. It would take a government agency and some highly questionable assumptions to determine which part of the value of the land was ‘justified’ and which was ‘unearned’ and thus taxable. But worse than that, modern economic analysis has moved beyond the old Ricardian land value theory and concludes that each factor of production will receive its marginal product. This means that land does not receive the residual value of all economic activity, but capital and labour equally receive value according to what they have contributed.
There is a more fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the supporters of LVT. They assume, implicitly or even explicitly, that landowners do not perform an economic function. Their perception of landowners is that they do not contribute the least to the economy, yet at the same time they reap large profits from owning their land. From this perception it is not far to the claim that their allegedly undeserved profits from land should be taxed away.
Closer inspection, however, reveals that landowners perform a number of valuable economic tasks. Like the owners of any other factor of production, landowners have to make frequent decisions on what use to make of their property. They decide in which way to utilise their land, which could mean to keep land idle. For one, there is much more land than there is labour to keep all land in use all the time. Secondly, it can be necessary at times to keep land from the market and wait for a better opportunity to bring it back into use, for example when there is a chance to develop a larger area. These decisions have to be made, and they have to be made by someone who bears the economic consequences.
This is the task of the landowner who accepts the residual risk and takes the opportunity costs of withholding land from its most valuable unrealised economic potential. In many ways, the role of the landowners resembles that of entrepreneur-investors in other markets. Like any other investor they have to allocate scarce resources over time and ultimately direct them to their most productive uses. To take this role from them by means of taxing the value of their property means creating a distortion in the market as landowners would be unable to make independent decisions about their property. It resembles a kind of central planning in the land market.
People owning land should be treated like people owning other forms of capital. Owning a factory, money in a bank account or a plot of land should thus not be taxed on their respective values, but on the actual income – not a hypothetical income – generated from them. The proper tax for this is the income tax. An additional land value tax would be both unnecessary and undesirable. Besides, it would not fit into our general approach to taxation. In our current tax system people are usually not taxed for the resources they own but for the income they make from these resources.
For example, you would not be punished if you decided to keep your money in a money sock or a piggy bank instead of directing it to a high-interest investment. You would only be taxed once your capital yields an income. Thus the capital owner is free to decide how to use his resources, even if that means running the risk of not making the most of them. In a market economy with individual autonomy, however, this is something that has to be accepted. It is the general principle of a market economy with private property rights that property owners are free to make their own decisions.
As we have seen, in a market in which landowners make decisions about land uses, an LVT would have severely negative economic side effects. Yet in Britain, land-use decisions are not only made by landowners, but also by planners. In effect this means that landowners would often not even be able to make the most of their land, but they are restricted to what planners have allowed them to do. But when it then comes to imposing an LVT on these landowners, on what value should this tax be based? On the current use value, on the use allowed by the plan, or on some fictional use regardless of what is currently permitted? Once again, an LVT would turn out to be a source of extreme legal uncertainty – and it would be difficult to implement, practically.
In addition to all these economic difficulties, there is a further moral complication to LVT. As the supporters of LVT claim, the tax should be levied on the intrinsic value of a site. But it turns out that such values often depend on the surroundings of the plot and not only on the plot itself. There is no purely intrinsic value, especially when it comes to land in the cities. In other words, changes made by your neighbours will affect the value of your property. If your neighbour builds a polluting factory, your land value and thus your LVT will fall. If your neighbour, however, opens a theme park or if a new tube line stops in front of your door, your land value will increase and with it the tax you would have to pay on it. So in other words, the tax one has to pay does not actually depend solely on one’s own property positions, let alone one’s financial situation, but on the consequences of other people’s actions. Surely, such a system of taxation cannot be regarded as fair or just.
First, it is assumed that land ownership does not fulfil any economic function and that, therefore, all income received from owning land is basically unjustified, even unjustifiable. In order to reach this conclusion the supporters of LVT since David Ricardo have divided land rents into rents that derive from the land itself and rents that derive from the improvements done to this land. For example, if one cultivated a piece of land or built a house on it, then such investment would – even in the eyes of LVT supporters – justify an income. But the income that simply flows from the ‘indestructible powers of the soil’ (Ricardo) would not.
In practice, however, one could hardly ever separate the incomes from land and from improvements to the land. It would take a government agency and some highly questionable assumptions to determine which part of the value of the land was ‘justified’ and which was ‘unearned’ and thus taxable. But worse than that, modern economic analysis has moved beyond the old Ricardian land value theory and concludes that each factor of production will receive its marginal product. This means that land does not receive the residual value of all economic activity, but capital and labour equally receive value according to what they have contributed.
There is a more fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the supporters of LVT. They assume, implicitly or even explicitly, that landowners do not perform an economic function. Their perception of landowners is that they do not contribute the least to the economy, yet at the same time they reap large profits from owning their land. From this perception it is not far to the claim that their allegedly undeserved profits from land should be taxed away.
Closer inspection, however, reveals that landowners perform a number of valuable economic tasks. Like the owners of any other factor of production, landowners have to make frequent decisions on what use to make of their property. They decide in which way to utilise their land, which could mean to keep land idle. For one, there is much more land than there is labour to keep all land in use all the time. Secondly, it can be necessary at times to keep land from the market and wait for a better opportunity to bring it back into use, for example when there is a chance to develop a larger area. These decisions have to be made, and they have to be made by someone who bears the economic consequences.
This is the task of the landowner who accepts the residual risk and takes the opportunity costs of withholding land from its most valuable unrealised economic potential. In many ways, the role of the landowners resembles that of entrepreneur-investors in other markets. Like any other investor they have to allocate scarce resources over time and ultimately direct them to their most productive uses. To take this role from them by means of taxing the value of their property means creating a distortion in the market as landowners would be unable to make independent decisions about their property. It resembles a kind of central planning in the land market.
People owning land should be treated like people owning other forms of capital. Owning a factory, money in a bank account or a plot of land should thus not be taxed on their respective values, but on the actual income – not a hypothetical income – generated from them. The proper tax for this is the income tax. An additional land value tax would be both unnecessary and undesirable. Besides, it would not fit into our general approach to taxation. In our current tax system people are usually not taxed for the resources they own but for the income they make from these resources.
For example, you would not be punished if you decided to keep your money in a money sock or a piggy bank instead of directing it to a high-interest investment. You would only be taxed once your capital yields an income. Thus the capital owner is free to decide how to use his resources, even if that means running the risk of not making the most of them. In a market economy with individual autonomy, however, this is something that has to be accepted. It is the general principle of a market economy with private property rights that property owners are free to make their own decisions.
As we have seen, in a market in which landowners make decisions about land uses, an LVT would have severely negative economic side effects. Yet in Britain, land-use decisions are not only made by landowners, but also by planners. In effect this means that landowners would often not even be able to make the most of their land, but they are restricted to what planners have allowed them to do. But when it then comes to imposing an LVT on these landowners, on what value should this tax be based? On the current use value, on the use allowed by the plan, or on some fictional use regardless of what is currently permitted? Once again, an LVT would turn out to be a source of extreme legal uncertainty – and it would be difficult to implement, practically.
In addition to all these economic difficulties, there is a further moral complication to LVT. As the supporters of LVT claim, the tax should be levied on the intrinsic value of a site. But it turns out that such values often depend on the surroundings of the plot and not only on the plot itself. There is no purely intrinsic value, especially when it comes to land in the cities. In other words, changes made by your neighbours will affect the value of your property. If your neighbour builds a polluting factory, your land value and thus your LVT will fall. If your neighbour, however, opens a theme park or if a new tube line stops in front of your door, your land value will increase and with it the tax you would have to pay on it. So in other words, the tax one has to pay does not actually depend solely on one’s own property positions, let alone one’s financial situation, but on the consequences of other people’s actions. Surely, such a system of taxation cannot be regarded as fair or just.
He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
- If you want to read it, PM me and I'll gladly drop it in the post to you.
Andy Zarse said:
To be fair TB, I have a whole book* on this subject, written by noted economist Fred Harrison. And if I was a clever as Fred I would rip holes in these points.
A very generous offer but Fred Harrison+LVT might produce something online, even a review could be sufficient.- If you want to read it, PM me and I'll gladly drop it in the post to you.
With respect, it's easy to say that there are arguments that rip holes in the compelling basis for rejecting LVT. If they were equally compelling, my mishievous side reckons you might remember what they were after reading Fred's book...and is Fred really the sole voice of reason on this?!
Andy Zarse said:
To be fair TB, I have a whole book* on this subject, written by noted economist Fred Harrison. And if I was a clever as Fred I would rip holes in these points.
He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
Andy - you make the key point about cutting other taxes, particularly on income. Stamp duty and IHT would be on the list as well. He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
- If you want to read it, PM me and I'll gladly drop it in the post to you.
While not as erudite as Fred Harrison, this is also a useful site
http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/ I have no idea who this chap Mark Wadsworth is.
edh said:
Andy Zarse said:
To be fair TB, I have a whole book* on this subject, written by noted economist Fred Harrison. And if I was a clever as Fred I would rip holes in these points.
He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
Andy - you make the key point about cutting other taxes, particularly on income. Stamp duty and IHT would be on the list as well. He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
- If you want to read it, PM me and I'll gladly drop it in the post to you.
While not as erudite as Fred Harrison, this is also a useful site
http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/ I have no idea who this chap Mark Wadsworth is.
All it takes to address the points raised by Hartwich is to assemble the equally compelling counter-argument beneath each of his paragraphs. Tick tock
Andy Zarse said:
To be fair TB, I have a whole book* on this subject, written by noted economist Fred Harrison. And if I was a clever as Fred I would rip holes in these points.
He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
I think a LVT combined with a flat tax is a good idea, but people from both sides of the political spectrum don't like them.He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
- If you want to read it, PM me and I'll gladly drop it in the post to you.
turbobloke said:
edh said:
Andy Zarse said:
To be fair TB, I have a whole book* on this subject, written by noted economist Fred Harrison. And if I was a clever as Fred I would rip holes in these points.
He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
Andy - you make the key point about cutting other taxes, particularly on income. Stamp duty and IHT would be on the list as well. He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
- If you want to read it, PM me and I'll gladly drop it in the post to you.
While not as erudite as Fred Harrison, this is also a useful site
http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/ I have no idea who this chap Mark Wadsworth is.
All it takes to address the points raised by Hartwich is to assemble the equally compelling counter-argument beneath each of his paragraphs. Tick tock
edh said:
turbobloke said:
edh said:
Andy Zarse said:
To be fair TB, I have a whole book* on this subject, written by noted economist Fred Harrison. And if I was a clever as Fred I would rip holes in these points.
He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
Andy - you make the key point about cutting other taxes, particularly on income. Stamp duty and IHT would be on the list as well. He makes a very compelling case for a land value tax, but, and here is the important thing, only when accompanied by a slashing of tax on the value of hard work. Such a tax might help steer this country away from its terrible mindset of seeing rent seeking as an aspiration and towards people getting off their arses and building socially useful businesses.
How is it fair that hard work is considered an evil by many in our society and so taxed at up to 45% plus NI, but dealing in property attacts CGT at far lower rates? This is a circle that needs squaring, and fast, and some sort of LVT might help.
- If you want to read it, PM me and I'll gladly drop it in the post to you.
While not as erudite as Fred Harrison, this is also a useful site
http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/ I have no idea who this chap Mark Wadsworth is.
All it takes to address the points raised by Hartwich is to assemble the equally compelling counter-argument beneath each of his paragraphs. Tick tock
At the moment I hold that your comment applies more to the fluff at the link posted earlier which creates poor widow owners etc which is done to construct easy counter-arguments. Hartwich's approach is fundamental.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff