Yugoslavia thought there was an alternative. And I agreed with their stance. Didn't end too well for them, tho.

Maybe Russia and China can cobble together some kind of ideological pathway. But Western trans-national capital can bring some almighty firepower to bear on anyone bucking the trend.

They are bleeding Russia dry by flooding the oil markets with cheap crude.

In any case, the Russians don't seem too different. Their style of corruption wears only a different cap.

No, I reckon it will take a major war, population shift or calamity to shake the current corporate model. Which is usually the case with any dominant system.

It is only ridiculous if you look at it through closed eyes.

How can "any land" have development potential if there is no permission to develop it?

In 2007 the Valuation Office Agency conducted a study and it was estimated that the average price of land designated for agriculture in England was £9,287 per hectare, while for different kinds of industrial and commercial use it was between £630,000 and £749,000 per hectare, and for residential use it was as much as £2.46 million per hectare. So it's not too difficult to determine the value of the land and I'd suggest that's far simpler than determining the value of buildings. Tony Vickers, at the School of Surveying, Kingston University, is pioneering techniques to create maps that, instead of showing contour lines depicting topography, show lines marking off localities and zones with equal land values per hectare or square metre. So, it really isn't too difficult, especially given advances in computing and satellite imagery

A start could be made by using LVT to replace inheritance tax and stamp duty, unpopular taxes that only arise when someone dies or something is sold

Even that well-known, left-wing agitator Winston Churchill could see the problem. This from a Commons speech in 1909:

[i“Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived … the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done.”[/i

If you look at the society's where it has worked their initial structures is very different from what we have here. The size of the economy of Singapore, Taiwan, Norway, Hong Kong is very different to the UK.

Who pays the LVT on hospitals, schools and local council/government owned land which will be significant. We want to encourage house building and inward industrial investment which realistically has to happen on green belt land - how will your development potential based LVT work in that case?

I am not as sceptical as I am sure you think, I am genuinely interested in understanding how you think this would be administered and how it would work.

Freeing up greenbelt land for development is simple, we freed up thousands of acres of agricultural land immediately post WW2. Land is bought and taxed at the current rate of use, so agricultural land would be valued and taxed as agricultural land, unless and until it has planning permission. Once that permission is achieved, the land is then valued and taxed according to its developed potential.

As there is no realistic development potential on land owned by schools, hospitals etc. the land will attract a very low valuation. With LVT, it is only the land value that is determined, not the buildings that are on them.

The first taxes that LVT could replace are: Council Tax and stamp duty

Do government owned bodies pay council tax, do the council pay council tax on the buildings they own ?

I know that government bodies cannot register for VAT and so effectively are "end users" as far as that is concerned so why would they pay tax to the department that allocates their budget from the taxation pot ?

If I gift you £1000 to spend on a project would you expect me to ask for £200 of it back as a "tax" ?

If there were no development opportunities on land owned by schools why has the government been selling off all the playing fields?

Are you suggesting that land say in the centre of London that currently has buildings sat on it would attract this tax or just unused green belt land?

Because this is no longer going to be a local tax but a national one and to make things fair it must apply to all. You can't say to a landlord/farmer you pay a tax on this land but a local authority is exempt that's not equitable and creates and unfair market.

The NHS still pays employers NI even though the money it pays in is recycled to fund it.

No, what I'm suggesting is that all land, apart from common land, is subject to LVT. One major benefit from this is the Land Registry can finally put names to the 40% of UK land that has no "listed" owner or tenant (although even landowners are only tenants of the Crown).

A school field, as a school field has zero development potential and would be taxed accordingly. Whereas a school field that is up for sale with development potential is no longer a school field, it is a field with development potential and would be taxed according to that development potential.

LVT would also mitigate against the land bankers who simply buy land and sit on it, paying little or nothing while the value of the land increases. Tesco & Asda used to be prime culprits, buying land around an urban development simply to prevent a competitor buying it. I previously mentioned the route of Docklands Light Railway: some speculators bought land along the route and allowed it to remain vacant (whether it had buildings on it or not), simply to cash in once the DLR opened. The infrastructure improvements along the route were funded from general taxation. Why should a speculator be allowed to profit from improvements paid for from the general exchequer?

On your last point there has to be a reward for the risk or nobody would ever bother to invest - what if the DLR had been cancelled or re-routed then the investment would not have looked so great. The rumour years ago was they would build a second channel tunnel all of a sudden land in a certain part of Kent got bought but that hasn't come to pass so the investment looks a bit sick now.

Would you grade the land for taxation purposes? if so how would that be done equitably and who would pay the tax the landlord or the tenant?

If DLR had been cancelled, then the land purchaser would have lost nothing, the land would be the same value without DLR as it previously was without DLR. I cannot understand how anyone can be happy with taxpayers funding unearned income for land speculators.

Land is easier to grade for taxation purposes than land plus buildings, as is the current system. Revaluing land + buildings wasn't so diffcult when Council Tax bands were set. LVT would be paid by whoever owned the land, it would then be up to them to pass on the charge to their tenants.

What you must remember, LVT is not to be viewed as an additional tax, it is there as a replacement tax and the one thing that can be said, it really is a progressive tax

The landowner would have incurred the opportunity cost of what else they could have done with the money. If the government want to run projects through private land then there has to be some compensation to the land owner - surely that is an equitable trade off?

Agree on the second point this could be done by post code - but would local councils not lose out - instead of collecting cash they would be paying out for the land they own or would the monies be re-directed via the government rebate?

I think you misunderstand what I said. I'm not talking about lanowners being compensated for having land compulsorarily purchased, rather I am talking about pure speculators who saw a chance to buy land, knowing that taxpayer-funded improvements to infrastructure would improve the value of that land. Many existing businesses along the DLR route benefitted from improvements in value, once DLR was finished. During this period they continued trading, often suffering problems associated with a major civil project that DLR would present during construction. The difference between them and the speculators was the businesses continued contributing in the form of UBR. The speculators paid no such taxes on their land or empty buildings.



At the moment UBR is collected centrally and then doled out to local authorities. LVT would be collected by local authorities and I imagine a subsequent reduction in the amount of UBR redistribution would ensue. Worked properly, it should see a reduction in the total taxes that businesses pay because they would then be "compensated" by those individuals and businesses who currently pay little or nothing finally having to make a commercial contribution

I see your point on point one but I also the position of the speculator - its still a risk and they have to stump up the money which will cost them.

One concern I would have is pension funds that have large land holdings including commercial property - rents are already driving businesses off the high street more tax will not help and empty premises will not help pension participants - maybe I am being too insular

It's not MORE tax, it is a redistribution of tax, the method of collecting it and from whom.

Another potential benefit, is to encourage building of more houses. There is no doubt that there is a chronic shortage of houses in the country. If housebuilders and other land-bankers suddenly found that they were liable for the tax on land that they'd bought and were sitting on until "the market was right". Tax that was levied at the "developed potential" instead of just an empty field, they might get their fingers out and start building the houses they already received planning permission for.

The main thing is, unlike, income, corporation or even capital gains tax, it cannot be avoided by offshoring or transferring assets into "trusts" (LOL). The land is clearly there, it is definable, as is the owner. It's simply something that cannot be avoided. Surely that has to be a good thing?

You never know, it could even lead to a means to abolish employers' NI

[url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/29/why-do-we-pay-more-council-tax-than-knightsbridge-oligarchsHere's an article of how broken the council tax system is[/url

When we get to the point that an oligarch can pay lower tax on a £100m+ apartment in London than a teacher would on a £200k house in Blackburn, we really do need to look at an alternative way of taxing land

At least [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-springScotland looks to change the nature of land ownership and taxation[/url

Did the teacher in Blackburn cough over 9m quid in stamp duty when he bought his house?

The teacher in Blackburn will almost certainly make use of council services. The rich fool who overpaid massively for that apartment probably doesn't make any use of council services whatsoever.

So you are confortable with oligarchs driving up the prices of property in London to the extent that a teacher, fireman, policeman, nurse cannot even afford to actually live in the city?

The stamp duty argument is fatuous beyond belief, it's a once only hit, paid only when a property is sold. So the oligarch doesn't drive on any of London's streets, have his refuse collected, take advantage of anyone who has been educated in a London school?

Have you bothered reading much of this thread at all, or just done the usual and jumped in at the end?

It's paid by the buyer when the property is bought.



The lack of affordable housing for ordinary people in London has precisely NOTHING to do with oligarchs spending 100m quid on mansions and apartments in Kensington and Chelsea.

Simply not true.

The property market is all about chancing you arm and trying to get as much as you can for the property you are selling. As London prices rocket in the premium areas, it has a knock on effect to the areas surrounding them as they all want a slice of the action.

Buyers also start to look at other areas in an attempt to get a better deal. Look at once unfashionable places like Hoxton and Shoreditch. Trendy youngsters identified cheap property years ago and moved in. As the area has been gentrified over the last few years it's suddenly become quite a hub for hipsters and creatives. It's also become much more expensive to buy property there.

As an area becomes more attractive, the prices start to go up pretty quick. Kids who were born in these areas before they became what they are, simply can't afford to live there, hence they have to move even further out.

It's been going on for years, most notably in areas of natural beauty where rich city folk buy up property for holiday homes and raise the prices for the locals looking to stay in the area. Unfortunately there's no sentiment for locals in the property market.

Speaking of stamp duty, big thanks to that bell end Gideon who pretends he's running the economy for giving everyone buying and selling their house tomorrow literally no f*******g time at all to sort out their changes.
It's bound to c**k up at least one of the 6 people in our chain in the morning when we are scheduled to complete.

The speed solicitors deal with paperwork requires at least two weeks just to read an email, let alone re-work a tax bill.

Cheers. It's not that buying and selling houses in this country isn't already stupid and stressful enough.

Apart from the fact that he did say buyers could choose which system suited them best?

I hate the 2@ but even I got that bit

My eldest isn't that impressed with him either, she's one of the people who do all the legal stuff on your chain of purchasers and their department deals with the high end buyers, some of their clients will have got a shock today and will be getting some pleasant phone calls in the morning. poor loves



One thing she did mention in passing, if I heard this right, is that it applies at exchange not completion, might have got that wrong though.

No [is[/ihit Sherlock!

When something is sold, there usually has to be a buyer and a seller. It matters not who pays stamp duty, it's still only a one-time hit at the point of sale



If you believe that then you really are away with the fairies. There's really no point in trying to explain the push/pull of property prices to you because you're obviously too dumb to understand

Very unlikely your last point - I can see that being increased further - you can't avoid that by offshoring your HO



One of the problems I see is that overtime someone wants to build on green belt the locals are up in arms - so the increased tax could surely only be paid once planning permission is granted?

For the company that owns the land they have to feel comfortable that they can sell the houses at a price that gives a suitable return - paying your LVT maybe the less of two evils compared to selling at a low margin?

I got that bit as well. But as we are supposed to complete tomorrow morning along with 5 others in the chain, that's 6 extra decisions that need to be made by 6 solicitors in a couple of hours. Even with weeks to sort out paperwork our solicitor completely missed the fact that we hadn't signed the property transfer document until yesterday, when the temp spotted it and sent us an email, not a phone call, a bloody email.

A couple of days notice would have been nice. Someone is bound to screw something up or be unnavailable etc.