[diggers350] Re: Coats, Cahill and LVT - taxation reform is separate from land reform
jenchris at ntlworld.com
Thu Dec 9 09:35:51 GMT 2004
Tax raising and land reform should be separate issues.
Multiple tax points for products and services and corporate and personal
income taxation just means that more and more resource is tied up with bean
A lot of this bean counting and red tape produces nothing in the way of GDP
, ties up talented people wastes their effort in what is effectively an
inefficient out of date legacy of a prior era and is a lead weight around
the necks of us all but it has to be paid for somehow and that means that
the real producers foot the bill in higher taxation and lower standards of
If county A has 15 % of its effort tied up in taxation collection and its
management then country B with 5% taxation overhead has a massive advantage
in being fitter to provide for its citizen needs. The UK is a dead zone for
innovation, healthcare, education and motivation in general and a lot of
that is directly related to inefficiency and over taxation.
As an aside basic tax in the UK is about 25% + NI + day to day costs of
vat, fuel levies , stamp duties, road fund tax etc never mind inheritance,
gains tax and stamp duties
All in all cumulative base rate taxation is easily 50% for most workers and
60% for higher rate earners do the math yourself and find all the other
hidden costs that are really taxes.
Simplify the tax system to maybe just a purchase tax and a income/profit
tax at 1 rate for all does away with all the effort and expense wasted on
tax law , tax accountants, tax inequalities then we can look at the issues
on land reform in a separate light
Now that I have cleared up the tax system I will have a thing about land
From: Chapter 7 [mailto:chapter7 at tlio.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 09 December 2004 01:41
To: Jock Coats; diggers350 at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [diggers350] Re: Coats, Cahill and LVT
What the 70 per cent own is, in terms of its value, about 2 per cent land
about 48 percent bricks and mortar, and about 50 per cent planning
permission and it is the planning permission they pay heavily for,
they have paid off their mortgage when they can then proceed to make
somebody else pay through the nose for it).
The Land Tax arguments are confused by the fact that most of the value of
most properties lies in the permitted and actual use, rather than in the
land itself if you want to capture that value and tax it, then it is a
development tax, not a land tax that you are looking at.
Development taxes have their points, but when used in the past in the UK
they were abandoned because they discouraged development while,
ironically, one of the objects of Henry George's land tax was to encourage
I haven't quite got my head round all this yet, but as far as I can see,
main flaw in Land Value Taxation, is that it isn't really a land tax at
all, but an "improvement" or development tax, because that is where the
value is. This might have been OK back in the days when there was no such
thing as planning permission, and land could be assessed as being worth a
given amount according to its productivity, proximity to town centres and
railroads etc. Applying a tax on undeveloped land in George's day would
provided an incentive for it to be used to its full development potential.
But nowadays most land derives most of its value from planning permission,
something which is accorded by the state. If you tax planning permission,
then you discourage development, and you will get less homes, not more.
That's why levies are currently obtained through negotiations about 106
agreements, rather than a blanket tax.
If on the other hand you tax allocated land which hasn't got permission,
then you tax people who have been refused planning permission, which is
blatantly unfair because it is the state which grants pp and exacts the
thus giving the state an incentive for refusing planning permission.
Personally, I'm not wild about improvement taxes and development taxes. I
tend to prefer resources taxes which tax people for using more than their
fair of the earths resources and that includes land, petrol etc but not
"improvement", or planning permission. Resource taxes discourage
unsustainable development, but they don't discourage sustainable
> From: Jock Coats <jock.coats at oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:42:37 +0000
> To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [diggers350] Land party for affordable housing
> Hmmm - I'm not sure this is the case. I for one never forget that as a
> non-home owner I am in the minority, and of course am seeking ways to
> join that majority in some form or another (well - one aspect of it -
> security of tenure). A big part of the various land campaigns is
> focussed on trying to prove that those who are in the 70% already (well
> the 95% of that 70% who participate in the ownership of three or four
> per cent of the land in the country) would be better off under LVT than
> under an income taxation regime while those who own more would pay
> more. And I suppose part of that persuasion is trying to persuade them
> of the "fact" (to my mind) that they don't in fact actually own what
> they think they own - that there are so many conditions on home
> ownership that it effectively means that it is a different form of
> ownership from all others (like Churchill said).
> Those who have their nice homes, however small, are also often those
> who would rather not see any more - like the green belt defenders of
> Oxfordshire who want to have their cake and ensure that nobody else has
> a bite anywhere near them. LVT can be used as a vehicle to make
> existing land use more efficient and less likely to swallow up virgin
> land for housing - and there's some success in persuading people that
> ideas like LVT are better than urban sprawl for example.
> On 6 Dec 2004, at 08:22, Globalnet mail uk wrote:
>> The reason you, the Greens, ALTER, and the Land reform Group are
>> your heads against a brick wall at the moment is because your first
>> assumption is wrong; that very few people participate in land
>> ownership in
>> the UK. 70% of us have a stake in land through our home. So many
>> would change that situation that if you dont take it into account, and
>> dont, you will simply fail to even be heard. Its the biggest interest
>> in the UK, and all the LVT etc, etc, try and pretend it isnt there.
>> there, you start with it, and that way you may get somehwere.
>> Kevin Cahill
> J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
> T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767
> Diggers350 - an e-mail discussion/information-share list for campaigners
> involved with THE LAND IS OURS landrights network (based in the UK ..web
> www.thelandisours.org). The list was originally concerned with the 350th
> anniversary of The Diggers (& still is concerned with their history).
> Diggers appeared at the end of the English Civil war with a mission to
> the earth 'a common treasury for all'. In the spring of 1999 there were
> celebrations to remember the Diggers vision and their contribution. Find
> more about the Diggers and see illustrations at:
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Diggers350 - an e-mail discussion/information-share list for campaigners
involved with THE LAND IS OURS landrights network (based in the UK ..web
ref. www.thelandisours.org). The list was originally concerned with the
350th anniversary of The Diggers (& still is concerned with their history).
The Diggers appeared at the end of the English Civil war with a mission to
make the earth 'a common treasury for all'. In the spring of 1999 there were
celebrations to remember the Diggers vision and their contribution. Find out
more about the Diggers and see illustrations at:
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
diggers350-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Diggers350