mark at tlio.org.uk
Thu Jul 5 14:22:54 BST 2007
The problem with LVTers (Land Value Taxationers) is that they never make a
distinction between different types of land use. You guys apply a
reductionist logic to the problem (land concentration and hoarding of
"economic rent"), akin to the neoliberalisers. All land should be taxed,
you reason, so that all land is brought into productive use.
I do, however, appreciate - despite the "one size fits all" rhetoric -
that there is something in it. I would assume that this tax, in replacing
council tax, would be progressive not regressive, for one (in other word
it goes up in proportion to land area). As with the Income tax system,
there should be allowances so that smallholders don't find they are
footing a bill which precludes their ability to manage their land. Also,
that there would be exemptions, such as land managed for conservation.
The other side of the coin, of courses, is eliminating the largess of
subsidy handed out to large landowners, for the priviledge of owning acres
(like the Caverndish family who own 65,000 acres of land in the UK). This
inequity needs to be rescinded immediately. Reducing subsidy payment per
acre in ascending order is the least we can do.
The latter issues are TLIO's meat and potatos, as well as a progressive
planning system favourable to those who seek to live and work on the land
- not land taxation. I don't discount LVT completely, just that it is not
the panacea for the whole problem.
all the best,
> On 3 Jul 2007, at 17:26, marksimonbrown wrote:
>> Re: 1909 groups's policy on land tax, they are misconceived. Universal
>> land tax is a really BAD idea.
> Thanks, Mark, that's the sort of in depth learned critique that will
> change our minds.
> Jock Coats - Chair, Oxfordshire Community Land Trusts
> c/o Warden's Flat 1e, J Block Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
> w: +44 (0)1865 483353 h: +44 (0)1865 485019
> m: +44 (0)7769 695767 e: jock.coats at oclt.org.uk
> www: http://www.oclt.org.uk/
More information about the Diggers350