[diggers350] LVT again

[Chapter 7]

I'll bet you a case of malt whisky that capitalism and energy production
will still be buoyant  five years from now.

Simon 

From: "Kevin Moore" <kevin_enviro at hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:49:35 +0000
To: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk, chapter7 at tlio.demon.co.uk,
diggers350 at yahoogroups.com
Cc: jock.coats at oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk,
LandCafe at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [diggers350] LVT again


Hi Dave and others,

These debates are all very interesting from the philosophical standpoint,
but continue to miss the point and are a continuation of rear view mirror
analysis. Just how long does this group think it will be possible for people
to 'bomb up and down the M4'? Just how long do you think property in central
London will be more valuable than a Welsh hillside cottage? Failure to
answer those questions will result in a lot of discussion and analysis that
is completely detached from reality.

The reality is that Britain, along with almost every other developed
country, is basing transport, social, pension, migratrion, commercial..... a
whole gamut of poliices on continuing supplies of energy that actually won't
be there five years from now.

In the 70s Britain was sliding into obscurity; it was not smart thinking on
behalf of politicians that resulted in a turnaround in fortunes, but the
flow of cheap energy from the North Sea  -an unexpected windfall of oil and
gas  - money for nothing almost. Well exrtraction is well past its peak and
Britain will become increasingly dependent on rapidly diminishing imported
oil and gas for a short period, then will find itself up the creek without a
paddle. Depending on who you believe, the failure of oil supply will occur
any time between 2005 and 2010, with most oil geologists picking 2006 as the
crunch year, the point at which there simply will not be enough oil
available in the wolrd markets to meet [still increasing] demand. Gas
supplies will be in crisis soon after, even though a little breathing space
might be bought by purchaing gas from Russia. Most people fail to recognise
the importance of cheap energy and assume that society will continue on a
path similar to the past decade, when ther eality is that we are about to
experience a major discontinuity.

Events over the last year or so, but particularly between July and October,
when oil surged from around $40 to $55 a barrel were a stark enough warning.
Alas the warning was unheeded and just because there has been a respite,
people think the crisis is over and oil is no longer on the agenda. Yet
there is less oil reserve (of lower quality by the way) today than there was
yesterday. 

Then there is the matter of out of control global warming. Every bit of
evidence points to a complete failure to address this issue, even in those
countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol!  Britian must anticipate a
further deterioration of climate and a significant sea level rise, rendering
substantial regions of the country unproductive or completely unihabitable
(particulalry between London and Scarborough). Much land will simply vanish
under the sea. 

Debating land reform, (or anything else for that matter), in isolation from
the realitiies of the world we live in seems odd, to say the least. Once
energy supply is in delcine and globalisation falls over (3-5 years from
now?), there will be no grain from Alberta or tomatoes from Italy and
communities will have to provide most of their own food and services:
[agriculturally] productive land within reach of major populations will
become the most vaulable resource on the planet.

Regards 

Kevin   


Kevin Moore                                  Home  09 576 7077
Auckland                                       Mob 021 126 2528
New Zealand 
From: Wetzel Dave <Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk> To: 'Chapter 7'
<chapter7 at tlio.demon.co.uk>, diggers350 at yahoogroups.com CC: "'Jock Coates
(Oxfordshire CLT) [LC]'" <jock.coats at oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>,
'Land Café ( lc1)' <LandCafe at yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [diggers350] LVT
again Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:51:22 -0000 Cheers Simon I do not take just
an urban perspective. I used to live in Mevagissey in Cornwall - pretty
rural. I was active in the local Labour Party, a member of the Folk Museum's
Committee and Vice-Chair of the Chamber of Commerce, (we had members who
were not just traders and hoteliers but also farmers and fishermen!). I did
qualify my statement about accountants etc. with "But banks, insurance
companies, firms of solicitors or accountants, investment brokers etc. do
not desire to be on a Welsh hillside (except maybe for individual's holiday
homes - yet another story). I can only agree that Henry George, David
Ricardo and others were writing over 100 years ago. I certainly don't agree
with all that they wrote but on the subject of land rent and its role in the
modern economy they were in fact spot on. I also agree with your criticism
of Development Land Taxes but reluctantly have to disagree that a Land Value
Tax would make rural housing more unaffordable. In fact, by bringing idle
brownfield sites in towns, cities and indeed villages into productive use
for jobs and homes, the pressure for urban sprawl and the demand for rural
housing land would be reduced - this would force the land price element of
rural housing down - making houses more affordable. Similarly, if investors
no longer bought homes in the countryside for a capital gain, (taxed away by
Land Value tax) then the lower demand for rural homes would also depress the
price. With Seasons Greetings, Dave Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for
London. Windsor House. 42-50 Victoria Street. London. SW1H 0TL. UK Tel: 020
7941 4200 Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200 Windsor House is close to New Scotland
Yard. Buses 11, 24, 148 and 211 pass the door. (507 passes close by).
Nearest Tube: St. James's Park Underground station. Nearest mainline
stations: Waterloo and Victoria (Both a walk or short bus ride). Public
cycle parking available outside Windsor House. -----Original Message-----
From: Chapter 7 [ mailto:chapter7 at tlio.demon.co.uk
<mailto:chapter7 at tlio.demon.co.uk> ] Sent: 10 December 2004 11:19 To:
diggers350 at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [diggers350] LVT again Thanks, Dave,
I am still in the process to get my head round this stuff, and have already
sent a response to Jock Coats. I think one of the reasons for our
differences is that I am coming from a rural perspective, while you and Jock
are coming from an urban perspective. In the city It is highly arguable when
you state that "many more people desire to use land in City centres. Banks,
insurance companies, firms of solicitors or accountants, > investment
brokers etc. do not desire to be on a Welsh hillside". On the contrary
accountants, brokers and the like are beseiging the countryside, and
desperate to site both their homes and their businesses in remote and leafy
locations. Sure, property in the centre of London is worth more than
property on a Welsh hillside. But a property in a field in rural Somerset is
worth more than property on the average street in Yeovil. In both cases it
is scarcity which creates the value. In the case of the centre of London the
scarcity is a physical fact, not everyone can be in the centre; in the case
of the countryside it is an artificial scarcity imposed by a political
process. I do not think that classical Georgist theory adequately accounts
for this. George was writing in the days before accountants and the like
could bomb up and down the M4 in motorcars, and before planning permission
was introduced in order to stop the plebs from doing the same, and confine
them to the towns, from which increasing numbers are now trying to escape.
The inequity inherent in this situation cannot be resolved by imposing land
taxes or development taxes, since these will just make rural housing even
more unaffordable. The only way I can see to solve it is by rejigging the
planning system so that rural development is accessible to those who cause
least harm rather than to those who have the most money < ie low impact
development. Otherwise I agree with most of what you say. Cheers Simon >
From: Wetzel Dave <Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk> > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:44:24
-0000 > To: 'Chapter 7' <chapter7 at tlio.demon.co.uk>, Jock Coats >
<jock.coats at oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>, >
diggers350 at yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [diggers350] Re: Coats, Cahill and
LVT > > Cheers Simon. > > Land Value Tax is NOT a development land tax even
though you are perfectly > correct to point out that the highest land values
arise where development > has taken place. > > e.g. The City centres of New
York and London are much more valuable than > sites in the Rocky mountains
or on a Welsh hillside. > > This is because many more people desire to use
land in City centres and in > terms of business use it is more productive.
Of course, an urban farm in > Wall Street or the City of London may be less
productive than a farm in > Wales. > > But banks, insurance companies, firms
of solicitors or accountants, > investment brokers etc. do not desire to be
on a Welsh hillside (except > maybe for individual's holiday homes - yet
another story) but they do want > to locate in the financial district of a
world city. > > Many of the buildings they occupy were built many years ago
and would pay no > Development Land Tax (DLT). > DLT arises at the time of
development. Consequently, as again you so rightly > say, "in the past they
discouraged development". If you tax an event, the > tax can be avoided by
avoiding the event. In this case, by not developing. > > Hence, the
Development Land Taxes in 1947, 1967 and 1977 were largely > avoided by
landowners - and the economy suffered as valuable town and city > land was
left idle. Idle land means fewer jobs and fewer homes. This > artificial
shortage of supply of land also increased its price. Homes became >
unaffordable and marginal firms were unable to start or expand because they
> could not afford the premises they needed. With valuable urban land left >
idle, urban sprawl into the countryside on cheaper land was encouraged. This
> imposed direct costs of those located farther out, (transport etc.) and >
costs on the community to provide all the infrastructure that these new >
settlements required. > > And all for what? When Margaret Thatcher abolished
Jim Callaghan's DLT, the > tax revenue was less than the cost of collection!
> > Land Value Tax is the obvious alternative. > > All sites are valued
according to their optimum permitted use. > The tax is levied as a
percentage of the land value. > > Hence, valuable sites pay a high LVT and
low value sites pay very little. > > The landowner is paying for their
location benefit - a benefit they receive > from Mother Nature and the
community. > Improvement to buildings are not taxed. > Neither does allowing
a building to fall into disrepair reduce the tax bill. > > Landowners are
encouraged to make best use of their land within the planning > constraints
applied by the community. > > Other taxes on trade and incomes can be
reduced or even abolished. > > GDP grows. > > The Government could pay a
"citizen's dividend" to every man woman and child > (as in Alaska). > > You
are once again correct to warn us against taxing planning permission > (Kate
Barker's proposal of a "Planning Gain Supplement" for the Government. > > I
welcome your support for "resource taxes". > Our congestion charge in London
proves that if you charge for a scarce > resource (in our case scarce road
space in Central London) then people will > use it more efficiently (we've
achieved a 30% reduction in congestion). > > Similarly, LVT is a resource
tax, and if applied, people will make more > efficient use of the surface of
our planet, the spectrum, the fisheries in > the sea and our natural
resources such as oil. > > i welcome your thoughts. > > Seasonal greetings,
> > > > > > Dave > Dave Wetzel > 0207 941 4200 > > -----Original Message----- >
From: Chapter 7 [ mailto:chapter7 at tlio.demon.co.uk
<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, (until > 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 > development. > > I
haven't quite got my head round all this yet, but as far as I can see, a >
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 have
> 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 tax, > 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 > development. > > Cheers > Simon > >
> > >> 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. >> >> Jock >> >> On 6 Dec 2004, at 08:22, Globalnet mail uk wrote:
>> >>> Jock, >>> >>> The reason you, the Greens, ALTER, and the Land reform
Group are >>> beating >>> 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 >>> proposals >>> would change that situation that if you
dont take it into account, and >>> most >>> dont, you will simply fail to
even be heard. Its the biggest interest >>> group >>> in the UK, and all the
LVT etc, etc, try and pretend it isnt there. >>> It's >>> 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 > 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: >>
http://www.bilderberg.org/diggers.htm
<http://www.bilderberg.org/diggers.htm> >> 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: > http://www.bilderberg.org/diggers.htm
<http://www.bilderberg.org/diggers.htm> > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
> ****************************************************************************
** > ***** > The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are
confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are > addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any
warranty and any liability > as to the quality or accuracy of the contents
of this email and any attached > transmitted files. If you are not the
intended recipient be advised that you > have received this email in error
and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, > printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited. > > If you have received this email in error
please notify postmaster at tfl.gov.uk. > > This footnote also confirms that
this email message has been swept for the > presence of computer viruses. >
****************************************************************************
** > ***** > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion
Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/hcTolB/TM
<http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/hcTolB/TM>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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:
http://www.bilderberg.org/diggers.htm
of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
****************************************************************************
******* The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty
and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this
email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended
recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any
use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify
postmaster at tfl.gov.uk. This footnote also confirms that this email message
has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
****************************************************************************
******* 





Surf the net and talk on the phone with  Xtra JetStream!
<http://g.msn.com/8HMBENNZ/2728??PS=47575>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20041211/2f61c5b6/attachment.html>