Uk Council tax,. Reform. Needed?

[selmahoose]

edh said:

Here's an example of how the thinking is developing in Scotland (not sure if this is an "Opinion" or "Demonstration" )
http://slrg.scot/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pathto...

...and the deliberate omission is how the far-and-away biggest landlords in the country are to be dealt with, ie the councils and housing associations (not-for-profit landlords on the grand scale)?

Will they be charged this tax or will they be exempted? If they're charged it they'll go bust virtually instantly with all the accruing chaos that'll bring with it. If they're exempted there'll be a mahoosive hole in the revenue receipts.

(Probably best just do as the author has done and ignore this enormous room elephant. Like Brexit and Scottish independence "we can always sort that out once it's been implemented").

[edh]

selmahoose said:

edh said:

Here's an example of how the thinking is developing in Scotland (not sure if this is an "Opinion" or "Demonstration" )
http://slrg.scot/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pathto...

...and the deliberate omission is how the far-and-away biggest landlords in the country are to be dealt with, ie the councils and housing associations (not-for-profit landlords on the grand scale)?

Will they be charged this tax or will they be exempted? If they're charged it they'll go bust virtually instantly with all the accruing chaos that'll bring with it. If they're exempted there'll be a mahoosive hole in the revenue receipts.

(Probably best just do as the author has done and ignore this enormous room elephant. Like Brexit and Scottish independence "we can always sort that out once it's been implemented").

I think we've been round this one before..
Why don't you ask them?

[monkfish1]

edh said:

No. I'd suggest that land with established PP in areas with high land prices is "high value land" As you have hinted at in your post, once PP is granted, land value increases dramatically. Any valuation would deal with "permitted" use not "possible" use. The additional value for a garden with potential for PP is speculative and I don't believe would be assessed because in LVT terms, as the site value is associated with the notional annual ground rent, rather than any speculative premium.

I think the rest is conjecture and a dash of sensationalism.

Here's an example of how the thinking is developing in Scotland (not sure if this is an "Opinion" or "Demonstration" )
http://slrg.scot/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pathto...

How do you deal with the fact anyone can apply for planning on a property/land without necessarily owning it? So a council/developer could approve/apply for consent for 10 houses on a field/garden and the landowner suddenly needs to pay tax on it. He cant afford it so has to sell to said developer. This is wide open for abuse.

[edh]

monkfish1 said:

How do you deal with the fact anyone can apply for planning on a property/land without necessarily owning it? So a council/developer could approve/apply for consent for 10 houses on a field/garden and the landowner suddenly needs to pay tax on it. He cant afford it so has to sell to said developer. This is wide open for abuse.

Interesting question - I don't know

Seems highly speculative. In your example the landowner would be able to sell the land to anyone, not just the developer who had applied for PP. So quite a risk for the developer to take?

[turbobloke]

edh said:

monkfish1 said:

How do you deal with the fact anyone can apply for planning on a property/land without necessarily owning it? So a council/developer could approve/apply for consent for 10 houses on a field/garden and the landowner suddenly needs to pay tax on it. He cant afford it so has to sell to said developer. This is wide open for abuse.

Interesting question - I don't know

Seems highly speculative. In your example the landowner would be able to sell the land to anyone, not just the developer who had applied for PP. So quite a risk for the developer to take?

Bottom line: LVT remains a very weak option for the reasons previously stated.

[selmahoose]

edh said:

selmahoose said:

edh said:

Here's an example of how the thinking is developing in Scotland (not sure if this is an "Opinion" or "Demonstration" )
http://slrg.scot/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/pathto...

...and the deliberate omission is how the far-and-away biggest landlords in the country are to be dealt with, ie the councils and housing associations (not-for-profit landlords on the grand scale)?

Will they be charged this tax or will they be exempted? If they're charged it they'll go bust virtually instantly with all the accruing chaos that'll bring with it. If they're exempted there'll be a mahoosive hole in the revenue receipts.

(Probably best just do as the author has done and ignore this enormous room elephant. Like Brexit and Scottish independence "we can always sort that out once it's been implemented").

I think we've been round this one before..
Why don't you ask them?

LOL!! Do you think they'd say: "hmm never thought of that fkin' outrageously huge reason to forget all about this undeliverable and ill thought through fantasy. Okay. You're right. Let's just forget about it".

As a landlord I've got plans a) b) and c) in mind to counteract any LVT damage. But when the daft Scottish Nazi Party implement LVT and bankrupt the councils and housing associations it'll skyrocket demand for private sector rentals. And when demand massively rises without any supply increase what happens to rents?

[NDA]

98elise said:

A tax on on wealth would see me taxed more for having a sensible approach to my finances.

This sums it up perfectly.

[turbobloke]

NDA said:

98elise said:

A tax on on wealth would see me taxed more for having a sensible approach to my finances.

This sums it up perfectly.

Another nail in the LVT coffin.

[Whatsmyname]

Can someone explain in simpleton terms this LTV and what the affects would be on my situation should the system be put in place.

I live in a small band A 2 bedroom cottage with a large garden - you could easily put two 4 bed detatched houses on there and I doubt there would be an issue getting planning judging by the rest of the street.

Lets say the value of the plot with PP granted was £500k

Do I get bummed from the get go or what?

[anonymous-user]

edh said:

No. I'd suggest that land with established PP in areas with high land prices is "high value land" As you have hinted at in your post, once PP is granted, land value increases dramatically. Any valuation would deal with "permitted" use not "possible" use. The additional value for a garden with potential for PP is speculative and I don't believe would be assessed because in LVT terms, as the site value is associated with the notional annual ground rent, rather than any speculative premium.

I think what you're describing is a planning permission tax; it sounds like a b&stardisation of LVT. The market value of a lot is it's intrinsic value as a field plus a premium for the likelihood it will get pp from nothing up to actually having existing pp (aka the present value of what it could be 999 year leased for; ie the very basis of a proper LVT is a speculative valuation!). A change in policy, which increases the likelihood of pp will obviously increase its value but that's very different from an obvious development lot getting pp which has only a marginal if any effect on value.

Valuation only for permitted use (not potential use) as you suggest doesn't encourage efficient use of land at all. How much land has unused pp? If anything it encourages speculation in land without pp no? Certainly if it replaces sdlt.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 23 February 01:56

[edh]

fblm said:

edh said:

No. I'd suggest that land with established PP in areas with high land prices is "high value land" As you have hinted at in your post, once PP is granted, land value increases dramatically. Any valuation would deal with "permitted" use not "possible" use. The additional value for a garden with potential for PP is speculative and I don't believe would be assessed because in LVT terms, as the site value is associated with the notional annual ground rent, rather than any speculative premium.

I think what you're describing is a planning permission tax, it sounds like a bdisation of LVT. The value of a plot which is virtually certain to get pp but doesn't have it is only marginally cheaper than one with pp. The market value of a lot is it's intrinsic value as a field plus a premium for the likelihood it will get pp from zip up to a maximum of a site with pp. A change in policy, which increases the likelihood of pp will obviously increase its value.

Valuation only for permitted use as you suggest doesn't encourage efficient use of land at all. How much land has unused pp? If anything it encourages speculation in land without pp no? Certainly if it replaces sdlt.

Nearly all land in the UK has no permission for building.. it's mostly countryside. But we've seen numbers quoted on this forum that suggest that 50% of land with PP is held by speculators.

LVT encourages efficient land use because it is expensive to hold land that is not used to its maximum permitted use. It inhibits sprawl.

Another way of looking at LVT is to pay an annual ground rent. That's how it is intended to work.

You're right that one thing LVT can do is capture planning gain. That's by design.

[edh]

Whatsmyname said:

Can someone explain in simpleton terms this LTV and what the affects would be on my situation should the system be put in place.

I live in a small band A 2 bedroom cottage with a large garden - you could easily put two 4 bed detatched houses on there and I doubt there would be an issue getting planning judging by the rest of the street.

Lets say the value of the plot with PP granted was £500k

Do I get bummed from the get go or what?

No. But you would become liable for a large increase in LVT as soon as planning permission was granted, should you choose to develop your land.

[edh]

NDA said:

98elise said:

A tax on on wealth would see me taxed more for having a sensible approach to my finances.

This sums it up perfectly.

General wealth taxes are not a good idea in my view. LVT isn't a general wealth tax.

[anonymous-user]

edh said:

LVT encourages efficient land use because it is expensive to hold land that is not used to its maximum permitted use. It inhibits sprawl.

Another way of looking at LVT is to pay an annual ground rent. That's how it is intended to work.

Doesn't have to have pp. That's the point. 2 identical adjacent plots one with pp, one without but very likely to get, same value, same 999 year lease PV, same LVT. What you're describing is not LVT as I understand it but a kind of planning permission tax aimed to make it more palatable for homeowners who don't want to develop their land but which misses the wider point of LVT.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

NDA said:

98elise said:

A tax on on wealth would see me taxed more for having a sensible approach to my finances.

This sums it up perfectly.

General wealth taxes are not a good idea in my view. LVT isn't a general wealth tax.

Indeed. It's the one that makes least sense as demonstrated by this thread..