While invoking ecenomists who support the idea of a LVT, don't forget to note what they say about the limitations. I.e. the LVT is not a supplementary tax, it is the only tax. You need to fix the planning system first - the value of building land increases if you build a hospital nearby, the value of farmland does not. LVT creates a huge incentive to game or corrupt the planning process. And granting PP does not automatically increase the value of land significantly - you could grant PP across the whole of the Scottish Highlands and still there wouldn't be many houses built there, and the value of each bit of land wouldn't increase much.
A hedge fund that operates out of an office building gets taxed less than a farmer. It's almost like people forget that we have the technology to build vertically to a significant degree.
Why do I get the feeling that Labour won't implement LVT to lower other taxes but will just slap the LVT onto existing taxes to keep the already bloated government running?
It will be a new tax on top of existing tax, not replacing existing tax. You're asking for more tax for the government to waste. Tax is highest since WW2. Do you feel like it's being spent well? Do you think you're getting your money's worth?
@@EpictetusAuraliusIt's targeted towards huge land owners who buy up tons of potential farmland as an investment, that's a lot of money that does not move and is extremely bad for the economy. We'd rather this land is actually put to good use for the economy, maybe use it to build more houses or as actual farmland. It will be a minimal tax bump towards small landowners like people who just own a house.
@EpictetusAuralius Never trust a man who can't spell Aurelius. We do indeed need to raise more tax revenue and redistribute the burden of tax from the bottom to the top of our society. The problem is not government waste its the corporate fleecing of the government and the privatisation of its assets. We then further tax the bottom of society which is getting poorer while the richest are best able to avoid paying the rates we lower in order to encourage them to invest etc. Wealth is being redistributed to the top of our society and it is bankrupting the bottom and the state. This is the problem and a land tax would be a great place to start changing it.
Land Value Tax would be a true, progressive form of tax that is fair for everyone. It would ideally replace council tax which is incredibly regressive and its honestly unbelievable we still use it in the 21st century
How do you value a farmer's land It is very difficult because value has a different meaning for different people One wants to live near the school Artist would prefer seclusion
So taxing a hedge fund less than a farmer because the hedge fund can operate out of an office building is progressive? I'm not progressive, but at least make it make sense.
Whichever Prime Minister passes the Land Value Tax and its accompanying Citizen’s Dividend will automatically be remembered as the greatest PM since Clement Attlee.
If Keir Starmer passes it in the summer budget statement. He has the chance to be better than Clement Attlee himself. Though there are some other policies he must improve on of course.
@@pranshukrishna5105 First of all, I never said that his domestic policies were "so good". Second of all, I'm not a big fan of Tony Blair. However, he did some things regarding unattended and frankly necessary issues for a modern society. Like the minimum wage or the reform to the NHS, for example.
It's so fucking moronic how would you justify your support? Why not just tax investments instead? Why punish people for owning land that's been in their family for fifteen generations and they've done a good job of obeying God acting as a gardener and not a developer? Animals and plants need space too, if everything is developed there will be no more green space. This is among the reasons Europe is such a shit hole. You destroyed your forests, we protected ours.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish If a shepherd needs lots of grazing land, then that land is unproductive and has a low value, so wouldn't be taxed much. Conversely, the private-equity firm would probably operate out of a high-value office in a city, near lots of shops, amenities, and similar businesses which attract the sort of workforce they're looking for. Either the private-equity firm would be paying a high rent for that office, or they would own it, in which case they would be due a large land-value tax. Farmers have been complaining recently that farmland is overvalued compared to the money you can make from it. The reason for this is that it has value as a way for the rich to avoid inheritance tax. If this loophole were closed, the price of farmland would come crashing down, which would be good for profitable farmers wanting to expand while also reducing the amount of land-value tax due.
@@Batmans_Pet_GoldfishThat is not the default The Office will be taxxed more since city space is valued more then rural areas. Thus, the farmer will generally pay less tax then offices
@@alphamikeomega5728crashing land value is NOT a good thing for farmers (or anybody). It reduces their collateral directly reducing their access to capital. But you may be correct in your aa assessment of what it might do to markets.
OK, so long as you know that you could easily end up paying more for the land under your garden than the land under your house. LVT is, and is intended to be, an incentive to develop.
So Chinese-Hong Kong model? where the local government revenues relies in real estate bubbles to earn money? TLDR used Denmark as a example, but the tax there was reduced last year because was causing an exodus in the countryside and increasing the concentration of land by corporations.
@@darkhorseman8263 not true. I'm in Portugal and I pay about 40€ per year in property tax for a 2 bedroom apartment. it doesn't squeeze anyone. in fact it's quite the opposite it can regulate supply and demand. you just have to make sure there's a good implementation and that the rich pay their fair share and not the poor.
@@darkhorseman8263 "Their land"? The poor don't have land to be squeezed out of! Most of the land is owned by a very small minority. The poor only have their labor, which is taxed by the government and then taken as rent by landlords.
My only concern with LTV is it will incredibly strongly encourage the use and destruction of natural, non productive land. Like parks or national reserves. They would have to be protected by the government and I’m not sure they would.
Absolutely no different to the status quo, the reason they don't get built on is because they don't have planning permission. Because they don't have planning permission, the value is very small
There is a reason why those areas are super cheap when on sale, and that is that they are usually economically useless. It would be a case of "you get what you paid for".
They fork over much of the profits from the Crown Estate to the Government. It wouldn't exactly make sense to add an additional tax on top of the lump sum given to them.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should just allow the monarchy land to be included in Land Value Tax payments. Charles will destroy his reputation acting all privileged more than he already is. Even more for William. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
Do you rent on a piece of land? Yes, you'll pay. Do you buy from a shop that sits on a piece of land? Yes, you'll pay. Do you eat food from a product grown on land? Yes, you'll pay.
@@randomaccount53793LVT doesn't affect product prices. Landowners and landlords can't increase rent because if they do, they pay more tax because the value goes up. Support the LVT, make taxation unavoidable. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
If the UK phased out its current tax regime in favour of LVT and repealed the Town and Country Planning Act, it would go a long way to fixing the country’s economic problems “There is danger in reckless change, but greater danger in blind conservatism.” - Henry George
@@amphibiousanimations7721I think he's implying the government wouldn't phase out current tax and just add it onto all the other tax which lets be honest would definitely happen the government wants us to suffer
The reason taxes keep going up becomes clear when you look at the government's biggest expenses: pensions and healthcare. Because the ratio of pensioners to workers keeps increasing, and pensioners live longer (because they don't smoke as much), and the state pension keeps rising, these costs go up faster than the tax base increases, so taxes have to go up no matter who's in government.
The problem with LVT is that this isn't a tax that would be introduced to take the place of a different one, instead it'd just be yet another tax. Governments seldom repeal taxes nor voluntarily shrink in size.
And that's my biggest problem with this, why do we need a new tax if we didn't have it a decade ago? What is this funding? An addiction to spending? If this tax completely removes the need for VAT, you could argue it could do some good since that is a less fair form of taxation than LVT. But if you just add it on top of existing tax, it is just going to increase the cost to consumers for anything that needs land eg. Rentals, Business Costs, Food.
LVT should have 20% as the standard and abolish many Goods and Services Taxes like Property Tax, Inheritance Tax, Sales Tax, Income Tax and others. Also a Citizen's Dividend for any surpluses coming from tax revenue. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
@@PomuLeafEveryday It'll affect everyone lmao, you are talking out of your ass. Just another means to skin Brits because all Labor can be successful at is failing
depends on implementation. in my country where property tax exists for over 2 hundred years the 30.48 meters long pay cents and the 5 bed detached will pay orders of magnitude more.
@@riskinhos Well that doesn't fill me with confidence this lot had to get other people to buy their clothes for them because they couldn't manage it themselves. How are the going to implement this.
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus.
Same here, I believe the Bitcoin ETFs approval will be life changing opportunity for us, with my current portfolio of $108,000 from my investments with my personal financial advisor i totally agree with you
YES!!! that's exactly her name (Mrs Elizabeth Regina Nelsen) so many people have recommended highly about her and I'm just starting with her from Brisbane Australia🇦🇺
Frequently Asked Questions and solutions: **Q: How do you decide a property's tax rate?** -It could be based on auctions every 5 years. -It could based on the rent (so landlords can't just raise the rent to increase profits, they have to provide a good service to earn money). -It could be based on property appraisals - The Netherlands already does this for their wealth tax. -The property-owners self-declares a price and the tax is based on that. But wouldn't people set their house-price too low to pay fewer taxes? No, because this is also the price that the state can instantly buy your house. This is already used in Taiwan. **Q: Where does the money go?** - It could be invested in local infrastructure and transit, which makes sense because the property-owners benefit from that so they should also fund it. - It could be paid back to every citizen, so the majority of people would receive much more than they pay in. - Some have argued that this could replace every other tax **Q: "Will public parks and libraries be replaced with high-rises, because that's more economically-productive?** Parks etc can be left out of the system. However the govt has incentives to increase their tax revenue, so they probably would turn them into valuable real-estate. Land Value Tax is explicitly _not_ socialist, and it only incentivises productivity that's monetisable. **Q: Will the taxes on my home be so high that I'll be forced to sell and move?** Sadly yes if you live in the city-centre. So LVT would basically be free-market Eminent Domain. At least you'd get paid a higher value for your property. But I've seen other versions where the tax ignores your first home, and only affects rental properties/second houses/businesses (i.e. wealth tax in the Netherlands). **Q: Does the tax increase or decrease gentrification?** I'm not sure. It might decrease because it'd be cheaper to buy a house, once speculation and landlording are less profitable. Even goods from local shops could be cheaper, since they spend less on rent and there'd be more market-competition. On the other hand, community centres could be forced out as said earlier. And this doesn't change that landlords still prefer to rent to richer tenants.
Labour would destroy their argument if they pass a 20% LVT and abolish like every single Goods and Services Tax. Maybe help the farmers by abolishing Inheritance Tax and the workers by abolishing Income Tax. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
@@manuelbaliog5211One problem with this line of reasoning. Labour obeys the interests of the business class who give them money, they do not care one bit about elevating taxes on the poor and putting it on the rich (who can actually afford it)
@@averagedemocrat9546this is what I say to stubbornness that you have. Not to mention, it's in the 2024 Manifesto promise to not have taxes hiked on working people.
@@averagedemocrat9546 you never know unless you try. Especially with an open minded Labour Government. Compare this to the last lot of Tories who never even considered ever voting for Legal Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Patients and Proportional Representation on the National Level for 14 long useless years. Tories never once considered a vote.🌹 🌹🌹 🌹
As a card-carrying Tory and homeowner. My only reservation about this tax is that it will be done as an additional tax and will have exemptions. If this was done instead of stamp duty and everyone pays it, it would be an awesome middle finger to rentiers.
The idea is it would replace property tax effectively cutting tax in the countryside and raising it in big cities where land is in high demand. As for renters, LVT is their best friend. If a landlord raises rent they're admitting the value of their land has gone up (which will increase the tax they pay) and on the flip side if they reduce rent the tax they pay will go down
The government's two biggest expenses are pensions and healthcare. The reason taxes have been going up, even under the Conservatives, is that there are more retirees per worker, and they're living longer because they don't smoke as much, and the state pension keeps rising. Till this changes, taxes will stay high no matter who's in government.
@@0Expyred That doesn't make any sense? Unless the LVT rate actually changes due to having higher rent, which is unlikely to happen when realistically we're talking about relatively small changes in chargeable rent. Even if it did, LVT would only be a proportion of the value of the land. So, yes, the landlord might have to pay more tax, but he still ends up with more in his pocket.
Yes! I'm celebrating £32K stock portfolio today... Started this journey with £3K.... I've invested no time and also with the right terms, now I have time for my family an…
when someone is straight forward and good at what she does best. People will always speak for them. For me I can would say give Mrs Olivia Duke of finance education a try and you be happy you did
There's an issue in the UK where much of the land for whatever reason is not being used for it's most economically most efficient thing to do with it. Land Value Tax basically ensures that over time it makes less sense to do the less profitable thing. I think it's a sort of "obvious" thing to implement. At the same time, if it is implemented in an over zealous way, you'll basically squeeze everyone who is barely holding onto land into losing it. You would need to exempt people who are on paper, the top 1-2% wealthiest people because lots of land is currently being used inefficiently. It would put extreme pressure on the green belt, as legally they cannot develop too much, but financially will be unable to continue operation, leading to either no real use or a change. I'm willing to bet this will be implemented in a way which expressly hurts people it shouldn't and protects people it shouldn't.
Yes it would hurt those who inefficiently use the land or live on edge. Wouldn't it be better for the economy and the community if someone competent gets it who does? There are tons of rich idiots out there who can't and only let land rot.
@@AaronOkeanos Competency is one way to look at it. Many people in the country feel squeezed. How far does this extend though, do we apply it to people who own a single home or is this explicitly wealth redistribution via punishing the wealthy who are inefficient with excesses. I think this could be something that really pushes the country forward, I can also see it being "the thing" that was too much, and forced regular people to change their lives. Ultimately all to change the country in ways lots of people disagree with.
That's not gonna work. Revenue will be worth nothing. Gift taxes are weak. Same as the inheritance taxes and estate taxes. Support the Land Value Tax. 20% on all land and a Citizens Dividend for the surplus. That way, people are happy and the government is functioning with revenue. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
The other problem with any wealth tax you didn't mention is liquidity. If you are taxing the land when it isn't being sold, the owner won't necessarily have the cash to pay the tax. That might force them to sell it. In practice, that might be desirable since it gets the land into the hands of someone that will make more use of it, but when an elderly widow is forced to sell her home because she can't afford the land value tax, there will be outrage from exactly the people proposing this tax.
exactly! this is actually a pro-rich tax. It makes it harder for poor people to own property. If you are asset rich cash poor you can't afford it. It will just put more property in the hands of the wealthy and put more lower income families into bad acommadation.
Land Value Tax (LVT) isn’t inescapable-those looking to own land can simply choose to buy it elsewhere. Consider someone who enjoys owning a woodland for activities like fishing and hunting. Suddenly, that land becomes heavily taxed under LVT. Faced with this burden, they sell the property and move to a country where land is cheaper, purchasing a similar space there. Back in the UK, the land they once carefully maintained is repurposed into something uninspiring, like a paintball arena, or any other venture that skirts the need for planning permission. The real issue isn’t just the lack of land taxation; it’s that the UK’s planning laws are absurdly restrictive and counterproductive!
A plot in the woodlands wouldn't be "heavily taxed" under LVT, and it wouldn't turned into something "uninspiring". Woodlands are much more cheaper compared to lots in the cities for a reason.
The new owner would pay the same LVT the old owner would have paid. The tax hasn't been avoided. It has just been paid by someone else. And the fact that you are selling the obligation to pay the tax alongside the land will be reflected in the price you get for that land, so indirectly it is still paid by the old owner.
You mention the power landholders have. Could you do a video on that, specifically on how they influence the government? Labour has a huge majority and claims to be the party of the working class, theoretically they have the power and motivation to introduce a land tax but I know that it probably wont happen.
@@oliverleonard7730 you never know unless you try. Especially with an open minded Labour Government. Compare this to the last lot of Tories who never even considered ever voting for Legal Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Patients and Proportional Representation on the National Level for 14 long useless years. Tories never once considered a vote.🌹 🌹🌹 🌹
If you don't trust a government in this. You will just waste 5 years of possible growth. By then the UK may be toast if reforms aren't in place which is why Labour were elected. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
There are also places where you grant planning permission and the land value increases a thousand fold. This shows that, at least in some areas, planning permission is the bottleneck.
*Land Value Tax....* ah yes lets tax people for owning land.... (oh wait we already do its council tax , they charge if you build or don't and this takes the mick double tax this will cause more middle class who ain't rich and have small bit of land to become poor and struggle to build anything for themselfs)
Here is a simple test to see if a law is viable: Will this negatively affect the rich? If yes then The law is not viable. There is no chance this is implemented in any meaningful way, as much as I'd like to see it. Rich have far too outsized and influence and they won't give an inch of ground if they aren't forced to.
Land value tax is the way to go. The arguments against are purely about the mechanics of valuation, not exactly an unsurmountable problem. Use the revenue to scrap Council tax, business rates, IHT, Capital gains and then reduce VAT and corporation tax by as much as possible (revenue neutral). Then reform planning, which is supposedly happening anyway, and watch this country boom.
The Danish figured it out, so it clearly isn't impossible to do. The UK might even just copy their method as it seems to work. It's also funny to see how broken the UK is. Brexit benefited the rich, this plan might not make it because the rich are opposed. The UK is ruled by the 1%. They worried about the EU, when they should have worried about their own government not representing its own people. The UK is a sad undemocratic joke.
Yeah, exactly. I mean, if a car would run you over, stop, then back up and make sure you're dead, I'd shrug too. Here lies Mattieux Sommet. A car turned him into a blood stain . Previously, he was a shistain. Upgrades, people. Upgrades.
The Land Value Tax should replace the Inheritance Tax and the threshold should only affect wealthy farmers with hundreds of millions of pounds worth in resources. I hope that should be the case so you wouldn't be affected.
The good thing about Land Value Tax (LVT) is to discourage mass homeownership which is the root cause of asset bubbles, especially in countries like the UK. This will force homeowners to use their properties for actual habilitation or sell them off after not paying LVT.
In the US we have what's called property tax and it's exactly that. You are taxed a percentage of the value of the land (and buildings and location increase value) but it's not federal. It's almost exclusively a local tax. It's the largest part of how counties and cities are funded. And whenever a town or county need new infrastructure or funding for schools we vote on a levy to increase property taxes by marginal amounts
There are lots of arguments against it. I don't control the value of the land my house is on. If a big company buys up all the land around me raising the land value why should I get punished with higher tax that might force me to sell my house? Land value tax benefits corporations and the wealthy and punishes poor people for trying to own anything.
Valuing and taxing land is very common in Australia. Most if not all states have a land tax. And most states (not NSW) have a capital improved valuation as well, which is used for council rates (tax) and often the emergency services levy that funds things like the fire brigades. So, it can absolutely be done. There's enough land sold as vacant which allows them to extrapolate to value all properties as vacant. Usually both values are done, statewide, every couple of years. Victoria, Australia's second most populous state, does both capital improved (land plus buildings etc) and unimproved (land only) annually. Councils provide building information (building areas/sizes, materials, etc) to the state's valuers, and they use this info along with actual sales to extrapolate across all properties, generating a theoretical value if sold on 1 January each year. Owners have a 2 month window to formally object, annually, but in practice the number of objections is extremely low (in my council, 200-300 out of 48,000 properties).
The USA also has property taxes that achieve similar outcomes to land value tax. That's something critics often miss when they say it's unworkable or that valuation is too hard - the tax doesn't need to be perfect, just achieve similar outcomes.
How much vacant land gets sold in the middle of a city? I can see how you can get a realistic estimate of the value of rural land, but for urban land it is much more difficult to separate out the building value and the land value.
Having some surveying background myself, I would have thought some form of the residual value method used by estate surveyors to value a piece of land for future development would be suitable to separate out the value of the land itself. Repeating this valuation process for hundreds of thousands of properties up and down the country would be quite an undertaking however.
I wonder if for existing properties home insurance data could be used. I'm thinking the property value minus the estimated rebuild cost would leave a very basic estimate of the land value?
That assumes that the value of all land is equal or that holding an equal amount of land to someone else is equal. It's predicated on quantity not quality. This, the business owner who runs a fortune 500 hedge fund out of an office building gets taxed less than the farmer barely making enough to get by. This is one of the many areas where the georgists fundamentally fail.
Donald Trump immergin as the US president things have beginning to reshape in its compact form, Government salary earners are now surviving, Investment is now Safe, Him being Supportive in Digital assets has made Bitcoin and Crypto currencies to have a means of Surviving.
I am new to the digital marketing world and don't understand how it really works. A friend told me investing with a professional company is the best strategy for beginners and busy investors, but for months now I've been making so research and haven't found any.please any recommendations.
Speaking of which, I have the opportunity to invest in NFTcapital partner which has been in the forefront of a revolution in the Digital marketing system and what got my attention is thier transparency and mode of Operation which is way to Comforting in the investment industry as it stands.
The tax should be based on how much the owner actually makes. So if a bank owns it, it's taxed based on its profits. If it moves its offices, the taxes follow them. If they moved into a shack, the shack would thus be taxed its real value. But if a retiree moved into that same shack, the tax would be far less.
So basically, this is a tax meant to facilitate gentrification and further farmland loss? Because if taxes increase based on surrounding development, then this means that expensive housing built next to low income housing or farmland would cause the taxes to increase to the point where those properties would be sold for further expensive developments, thereby making housing and food less affordable over the long term.
Planning is still a thing, and a house with a garden is built up land, so it shouldn't attract a tax higher than current council tax. Its the vast tracts of unimprived land, or the latge landlords who would be forced to pay.
@@DrOktobermensch "Planning is still a thing," Planning determines the value of the land. If the planners say that your street can be built up high, under LVT you pay for that right exactly as much as the residents who take advantage of it. You're penalised for underusing valuable land.
Yes to reducing huge gardens and building taller. Both of these are eminently positive. Farmland wouldn't be reduced; you'd still need to get permission to build on it so it's no change from now. And, if we can build up more easily, then we have less pressure to convert farmland into new housing!
I agree with it for areas like London but for random little rural patches of land the trumped up value is bad from an ecological standpoint. People having big gardens which are essentially extentions of the countryside shouldn't feel like they have to develop their gardens and deprive wildlife of a potential habitat.
It should be in all places but the value will automatically be higher in cities. Making investment happen in rural areas. I also think that there will be amendments like LVT on unused land and property so that it will be popular and supported by the British people.
LVT gas to apply everywhere, or it will be avoidable. Gardens are not "extensions of the countryside", they are ecological dead zones. LVT would protect animal habitats by incentivising us to build more densely reducing the need for urban expansion
The undeveloped land value comes from the planning permission available. If the nature of their garden is worth protecting, the land won't have planning permission, and the tax will remain cheap.
Depends what that garden is used for . Lvt will need to have a system that has different values between private land , public land and functional land and non functional. So someone having a garden to grow vegetables or a small flower garden is functional . A big football field lawn garden is not functional A private swimming pool or tennis court is not functional So a semi public land like allotments will be lower taxed and a shared community garden will be tax free
Now we need a luxury tax, where you get taxed stupid amounts on cummulative property that surpasses 100m2 floor area. People need housing, not landlords!
I must not understand why there is any objections to LVT. My province in Canada has a body that assesses the value of my land, and separately, the value of my house. The two together are what I am taxed on. If I tear down my house, then I only pay taxes on the assessed value of the land only. The taxes are collected by my municipality to pay for municipal things like police, roads, water, etc. "Approximately 42% of taxes collected are on behalf of other regional agencies like Translink and the Provincial Government (school tax). The amount of municipal tax you pay is dependent on your property type and your property's assessed value, as determined by BC Assessment." Property value assessments (land and building) are done all the time, especially when you sell your property. If my province can assess the value of land and the value of the building on the land, why is anyone saying it's very difficult to do?
"If I tear down my house, then I only pay taxes on the land." LVT says the opposite. You pay tax on the value of the land, and it's up to you to make it worth the cost to you. LVT is a deliberate incentive not to leave land idle. Maybe ask your local government to remove your right to build on it. That woud reduce the value of your land.
Georgists, UNITE! Land Value Tax must be passed in the summer budget statement. Campaign as hard as you can fellow British Georgists! Make sure it will be in the budget for years to come in government! 🔰🔰🔰🔰
@@wetadventure3164property tax and council tax. LVT hasn't been in the system since the People's Budget is gone in the 1920s. If the LVT will be fully implemented again. Taxation on Goods and Services along with Property Tax should be abolished. Income Tax should be abolished too. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
The aristocracy and gentry alone own 30%. That’s significantly more than the amount of English land owned by the public sector, homeowners, conservation charities. The Royal Family and the Church of England put together (a total of 17.4%). Will they pay a tax?
Do you think this cost wont be passed on to renters/business leases/agriculture? The more important question is why do we suddenly need a new tax? What will it be funding? Will other taxes be reduced as a result? Is the government planning to confiscate land from those behind on payments? What makes this different from countries that only allow 99 year leases, doesn't this erode long standing property ownership rights? Are they planning to increase the pension for retired homeowners who wont be able to afford it? New taxes are never a one way street, rich landowners don't need to avoid it, they just pass the cost on like they always do and cause higher inflation. A property legislated free market will always allocate resources more efficiently than governments. They need to legislate property and stop tring to meddle with peoples' decisions.
Land Value Tax doesn't get passed on to renters as the landlord raises the value of their property by increasing the rent. Causing them to pay more tax as a result. Farmers should be treated with abolition of Goods and Services Taxes like Property Tax, Inheritance Tax, Sales Tax, reducing VAT to 2.5%, and others. That way if they have problems left, the government isn't to blame. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
The point is that the land owners would be forced to do something more productive with any land they hold. If they pass on the costs but another land owner has done something more productive with their land and can offer the same service but for less cost then free market, properly regulated, economics will ensure the most productive land is rewarded. You could easily look to reduce/remove other tax’s, such as the majority of VAT which is a regressive tax and makes little sense. But there are other taxes you could look to remove with differing effects.
@@petergoodwin7038I understand why people worry about empty, non-productive land. Shouldn't the law be focused on just that (not that I agree with it). There are three major issues I can see with it: One huge issue is the assumption that empty land is the reason for our problems. I think it is more of a symptom of other issues with the economy where it is more advantageous to leave it empty than taking the risk of doing something with it like building houses. One further issue is the assumption that all land needs to be used efficiently. Suddenly gardens and forests on private property become dead weight and need to be developed. It is an incentive for you not to use the land how you want, which is very dystopian. The final issue I can think of is the assumption that there is no disadvantage to having empty land. Usually you cannot insure bare land unless there is development going on, that is a huge risk in the event of natural disasters. Also, for those that finance land, they cannot deduct interest costs unless it is being used for business purposes, which is a pretty large incentive to develop it. What I'm saying is that there is an opportunity cost to land banking. I think the real problem is that there is so much friction for businesses, rentals, property developers, and land zoning etc. I think a great example is interest deductibility on residential properties that the UK has, and NZ tried to do. If there is no tax incentive to rent out a property, the risk of bad tenants (and not being able to claim back damages) outweighs the benefit of renting it out, so landlords keep the property empty reducing rental supply. This is the same for businesses, except they just leave the country if there is too much friction.
@@petergoodwin7038 What is considered "productive" for any land one holds? I can understand the reasoning for lands in business districts or industrial areas. However, unless the planning system provides different LVT (Land Value Tax) rates for different purposes, applying LVT to a residential area or home seems counterintuitive. If I'm a retiree, why should I keep paying tax on land that is meant for my own retirement? A retirement home will never have a "productive" value in the traditional sense. Are we expecting a 80yo to suddenly find ways to make their property productive just to pay the tax?
@@zombiedude101z the tax won’t be high in suburban areas because other houses don’t really increase the value of your property. It will basically be a cheaper form of council tax (assuming they get rid of it(I hope they do))
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 you don't understand how amendments work. They get rid of loopholes, not create new ones. If this tax is implemented, then Goods and Services Taxes should be abolished along with Property Tax. Income Tax should be abolished too. 20% with a Citizen's Dividend on revenue. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
I'm finding it hard to see how this _doesn't_ lead to the further consolidation of land ownership under corporate investment. If this tax encourages owners to sell land, why wouldn't market forces lead to this land being bought up by those with the deepest pockets, deep enough that taxes aren't a barrier to affordability? Just because they can't avoid it doesn't mean they can't afford it.
Another tax? Income tax rate 45% at only 50k, VAT 20% to steal what the income tax doesn't. death tax kicks in at only 325K, Petrol duty 53p per litre. The UK GDP per capita is pretty low and the standard of living reflects it. Last thing you need is less money in your pocket.
The government's biggest expenses are pensions and healthcare. The reason taxes keep going up is that there are more retirees per worker, and retirees are living longer, and the state pensions keeps rising. Till this changes, taxes will keep rising no matter who's in power.
Fred Harrison has wrote a bunch of books on this topic. He talked about how he made millions of Pounds off of the Jubilee line extension without raising a finger. I think that he shines a light on this topic in a great way. Great to read, especially if you are from the UK.
LVT is dead duck. The value of the land without taking account the buildings on it, is a mythical figure, it has no basis in reality. You would have to revalue the entire UK roughly every 5-10 years which is an enormous task and therefore an enormous cost, and that is before you take into account people appealing against the value assigned to their land. Then there is the problem that it would be impossible to value all the land at the same time so some people would be taxed at 2024 values and others might not be valued until 2026. Then there is the politics of the issue, which is one reason why Council Tax is both hated and national politicians are so reluctant to tackle Council Tax. The problem can be summarised as the "little old granny" problem. The issue is how do you deal with someone who bought their home 40-50 years ago when the area was cheap and run down, they are now a widowed pensioner and the area has become very expensive and chic but they are living on a state pension. They could not afford to pay a LVT. The left cannot say that the granny should move out because they know that ranks of hypocrisy when they have campaigned against the bedroom tax. The right has no interest in LVT because of the reasons set out in the video.
It's hard to account for an undeveloped land value tax, but I wonder how well you could approximate it based on the most recent sale price of nearby land, when the sale took place, what development was on the land and what planning permission was available. If the tax is only a small proportion of the estimated undeveloped value, then it's not a big issue if the estimate is somewhat inaccurate. As for the asset-rich cash-poor, there are a few things to say. First of all, taxing land would lower its value and thus the tax due (unless the land can still be rented for a large amount, in which case, the cash-poor owner is economically equivalent to a tenant in the same property with an indefinite lease and a large enough income to pay fot the lease). Second, allowing those with a low income to hoard our limited supply of high-value housing - which will typically be near both good amenities and good jobs - prevents those who could be doing those good jobs from doing them. Similarly, so does making it more expensive to employ people by taxing income instead of land value. A system which encourages rich unproductive people to move out of areas with a lot of productive potential so that others can move in is a good system.
LTV can be estimated based on the sale price (land + house) and then subtract the price to build the house. Either the original price to construct it + inflation - depreciation, or how much it would cost to build an equivalent house right now. LTV doesn’t have to be “exact” either, good-enough estimate made in a way that’s fair is good enough. The granny problem can be fixed by making an exception to tax on the resident you live in.
@@bzuidgeest "If it's impossible then how come the Danish make it work for them? " It's referred to as a "municipal" tax in the video. It probably only applies to a tiny fraction of land in Denmark. "You sound like a land owner." An argument stands or falls on its own merits.
Always the blocker are the people in power that benefit from owning everything and leave everybody suffering with the high housing costs. I think the best course of action would be to streamline planning permissions and then implement this but I also think there should be an exception on your primary residence otherwise is another burden on people trying to get on the housing ladder
The LVT will get rid of so many taxes on working people. Income Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Inheritance Tax, any Tax on Goods and Services like your food, groceries and fuel. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
The government's biggest expenses are pensions and healthcare. The fact that we have more retirees per worker, and they're living longer, and the state pension keeps rising, is why taxes keep rising - even under the Conservatives.
You never know unless you try. Especially with an open minded Labour Government. Compare this to the last lot of Tories who never even considered ever voting for Legal Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Patients and Proportional Representation on the National Level for 14 long useless years. Tories never once considered a vote.🌹 🌹🌹 🌹
so there are some real concerns. Imagine you are poor, just making ends meet. Then you inherit a property, you become cash poor but asset rich, with a land tax you are expected to use your cash to pay for your asset. However this poor person has no cash so they are forced to sell the asset, so back to bad cheap housing they go. For a lot of young people their only hope of getting into good quality housing is inheritance, so under a LVT these actually quite poor people will be taxed for the audacity of wanting to live in that inherited property and not sell it off to a wealthy person. An even worse scenario happens if agricultural land is not excluded. Especially with the so called tractor tax, you pay a fortune to inherit the farm, then you have a big tax bill each year to keep the farm. Again farmers are often asset rich cash poor. So you encourage small farmers to sell up, and you get farms owned by large corporations or millionaires who can afford the tax. Ultimatly this tax favours the rich who can afford to pay tax on land, and disadvantages poor people whose only asset is a property and won't be able to pay, so property gets siphoned off to the wealthy.
This has a real potential to be very damaging. For example I know of a land owner who's holds quite a bit of very picturesque and pristine land, it's a real beauty spot. Being a nice guy he left it open to the public for them to enjoy. Sadly that was not what happened. He found litter, used nappies, discarded single use barbecues, and worst of all, human excrement. He had to take the hard decision to close it off again. At least that land is now being cared for as it should be, but if he had to pay a "tax" on it, he may have to sell it off then what happens to it. He's making no profit from this land. He is just a responsible custodian of it. Who would purchase it and with no intent to develop it? No one, I guess. These lefty ideas sound good to some but, in reality, can be very damaging and usually a bad idea. This is in effect. Labour cash grab phrased in a way that would appeal to some.
If he can’t make profit from the land that mean it’s value is very low therefore the tax will be low.Why are people suddenly becoming stupid and not understanding how taxes work.
It's rather insulting to call people stupid, I think you may want to consider looking up the phrase "Dunning Kruger" before you post . In the example I quoted, the land in question is quite a few acres, so it wouldn't be a small tax at all.
@@Beorn. Stupid is indeed insulting but quiet accurate here since you don’t seem to understand that the tax is on the value not the size of land and therefore the numbers of acres doesn’t matter.
@@Beorn. The land being a few acres that no one else wants because it's in the middle of nowhere means the LVT collected will be very low. I think you're the one that needs to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.
"perfect tax" for people who dont own land because they pay nothing, but if you are a farmer who owns land but doesnt get much income from it then you get shafted by the tax man who wants his cut regardless of it you earn any money or not.... so its a crap tax for anyone who owns land that is not rich.. and btw there already is a tax on land tied to the value of the land, its called Council Rates.
Land can be used in so many ways. Not sure how it works in the UK (since I have zero interest to do some research) but in other countries there are alternative incentives like: planting a forest... But here are a few other ideas to raise land value and not crying about farm yields: - turn it into a nature reserve - park - a relatively low cost entertainment maybe? Mountain bike park or off road motorbike/car park (IF you really have that size and health and safety approval) - wind and solar farms are quite popular right now or OR! rent it out? Because the "perfect" tax is all about the land. Ownership can and will be split to land owner and property owner. And we all know the end consumer pays the bill not the owner...
@@mathyeuxsommet3119my fellow Georgist, please stop insulting everyone who is concerned with the Land Value Tax. I know they may not like it. But insulting them will not convince them to believe. Best that we get as many people on our side to campaign for LVT and make it happen especially in Great Britain. We might even slowly but surely save a country that way. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
that is no good for the poor... They do that in Switzerland and that just feels like your house never belongs to you. Some owners are better off keeping depts with the lending bank rather than paying their property off simply because the land taxes became higher than the bank's loan.
I'm just trying to understand why that Danish guy still remains a Danish citizen. I mean, the Scottish government taxes him, in Scotland. Which is fair. But then the Danish government also taxes him? I suppose old habits die hard, and the Danegeld must be paid. No matter if you're a foreigner or a Dane.
I can’t really see it working. Even if there was a way to calculate the land value of every property, there would be literally millions of disputes from people disagreeing with it. What if the same plot of land with a house on keeps increasing in value and the current occupants can no longer afford the LVT? Also, how would it work for flats? The current system seems fine except for the fact it doesn’t scale well with the ultra wealthy. Just do something different for them as that’s it sorted.
How about a spare home tax where any public servant with more than one home has to pay 100% of it's value in tax to help ease the national debt they have in their offshore bank accounts.
That will not work. Politicians aren't all wealthy. Most wealthy people are the businesspeople and landowners. Support the LVT to get rid of any tax avoidance schemes. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
@@manuelbaliog5211 Most politicians have more than one home, so yes it will work, they also take a million a year in salary and expenses each... The point is to apply taxes to the politicians not clear the national debt, we could do that by selling the US debt we own for some stupid reason. Profiteering in government should be illegal, lying and tax evasion an immediate prison sentence.
I’ve always noticed how right wingers will twist meanings , it a land VALUE tax and the way landowners have behaved the past 30 years all over the world , it’s the least we should do
Which is the point, you didn't make the land. It's a natural resource you are occupying. Also, given the alternative is the government owning your income forever, it's no contest for me which is preferable.
Council tax was, initially, a land value tax. It is paid by renters and not landlords. If this is implemented the costs will directly be passed on to renters
"If this is implemented the costs will directly be passed on to renters" Since the value of that bit of land comes from the fact that it is rented out then of course the cost will be passed on to renters. There is literally nowhere else that the money can come from.
Landlords charge as much as they can get away with. The price they charge isn't based on maintenance costs plus some profit margin, but on location, location, location. Tax land value, and instead of that money going to the landowner, it means we don't have to tax productive activity like income, spending and business.
Why? The last thing we want are more taxes. Or as a peasant do you like the government taxing you? It'll hit your pocket somewhere if you know anything about economics.
Why do you keep saying "land owners"? It's clear who this new tax is going to punish: farmers. Apparently cutting subsidies and over-regulating wasn't enough for the british farmer... But I guess the British countryside would look better as an housing centre for illegal migrants
It's to punish any one who owns a house as well, as they will say you are a land owners, the poor in council houses will be exempt as they are freeloaders anyway
It is wealthy landowners, yes that includes farmers. But imagine, abolition of taxes due to the high revenue of the Land Value Tax. Any Good and Services Taxes should disappear. Inheritance Tax may even be abolished. Even Income Tax, the Tories will be decimated. Immigrants should not be a blaming stick especially when many illegals are mostly being deported. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
So technically the government should pay people to use land in Birmingham since it is Birmingham after all
Fair
Is this because its population isn't Anglo-Saxon enough for you? I hoped I wouldn't see these sort of comments on this site.
I mean... you are not wrong
Georgists, our time is now. UNITE!
🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰
Solidarity forever?
There are dozens of us! DOZENS!
@@andybrice2711 plot-twist: it´s just 23 persons, that´s just 1+ dozen... ;-) and I still don´t care...
It's a poll tax 2.0 and will end up being just as popular.
While invoking ecenomists who support the idea of a LVT, don't forget to note what they say about the limitations. I.e. the LVT is not a supplementary tax, it is the only tax. You need to fix the planning system first - the value of building land increases if you build a hospital nearby, the value of farmland does not. LVT creates a huge incentive to game or corrupt the planning process. And granting PP does not automatically increase the value of land significantly - you could grant PP across the whole of the Scottish Highlands and still there wouldn't be many houses built there, and the value of each bit of land wouldn't increase much.
You can game or cheat any system, essentially, this is just a reset
A hedge fund that operates out of an office building gets taxed less than a farmer. It's almost like people forget that we have the technology to build vertically to a significant degree.
Why do I get the feeling that Labour won't implement LVT to lower other taxes but will just slap the LVT onto existing taxes to keep the already bloated government running?
My fellow Georgists, our moment has come.
Same here bro
God gave the land to the people.
@@mathyeuxsommet3119 grow up, myths can't give anything to anyone
Another way to confiscate land from farmers to get bought up by Blackrock
Do you see the cat?
If they pass the LVT, Labour would be so GOATed.
Labour works for the rich and has done since the late 1970s
It will be a new tax on top of existing tax, not replacing existing tax. You're asking for more tax for the government to waste. Tax is highest since WW2. Do you feel like it's being spent well? Do you think you're getting your money's worth?
@@EpictetusAuralius Yeah no shit it won't be so goated if they don't get rid of income tax
@@EpictetusAuraliusIt's targeted towards huge land owners who buy up tons of potential farmland as an investment, that's a lot of money that does not move and is extremely bad for the economy. We'd rather this land is actually put to good use for the economy, maybe use it to build more houses or as actual farmland. It will be a minimal tax bump towards small landowners like people who just own a house.
@EpictetusAuralius Never trust a man who can't spell Aurelius.
We do indeed need to raise more tax revenue and redistribute the burden of tax from the bottom to the top of our society. The problem is not government waste its the corporate fleecing of the government and the privatisation of its assets. We then further tax the bottom of society which is getting poorer while the richest are best able to avoid paying the rates we lower in order to encourage them to invest etc. Wealth is being redistributed to the top of our society and it is bankrupting the bottom and the state. This is the problem and a land tax would be a great place to start changing it.
Land Value Tax would be a true, progressive form of tax that is fair for everyone. It would ideally replace council tax which is incredibly regressive and its honestly unbelievable we still use it in the 21st century
🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰
How do you value a farmer's land It is very difficult because value has a different meaning for different people One wants to live near the school Artist would prefer seclusion
@@piotrwojdelko1150 You value it based on the maximum amount someone else is willing to rent it for.
I mean, council services aren't exactly that differentially used.
So taxing a hedge fund less than a farmer because the hedge fund can operate out of an office building is progressive? I'm not progressive, but at least make it make sense.
Whichever Prime Minister passes the Land Value Tax and its accompanying Citizen’s Dividend will automatically be remembered as the greatest PM since Clement Attlee.
why is tony blair not considered a good PM?
@@pranshukrishna5105If he just hadn't invaded Irak, his legacy would have been way less controversial
If Keir Starmer passes it in the summer budget statement. He has the chance to be better than Clement Attlee himself. Though there are some other policies he must improve on of course.
@@Unknownstatus_521 What is so good about his domestic policy?
@@pranshukrishna5105 First of all, I never said that his domestic policies were "so good".
Second of all, I'm not a big fan of Tony Blair.
However, he did some things regarding unattended and frankly necessary issues for a modern society. Like the minimum wage or the reform to the NHS, for example.
Would genuinely support this and I hate the Labour Party
Was about to say this. Might be the one good thing to come out of the Labour government should they actually pass it.
Can you explain why?
It's so fucking moronic how would you justify your support? Why not just tax investments instead? Why punish people for owning land that's been in their family for fifteen generations and they've done a good job of obeying God acting as a gardener and not a developer? Animals and plants need space too, if everything is developed there will be no more green space. This is among the reasons Europe is such a shit hole. You destroyed your forests, we protected ours.
This is the best way of taxing, the amount of pros outweighs any minor cons
Have you heard of an office building before? Should a shepherd, who needs lots of grazing land, be taxed more than a private equity firm?
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish If a shepherd needs lots of grazing land, then that land is unproductive and has a low value, so wouldn't be taxed much. Conversely, the private-equity firm would probably operate out of a high-value office in a city, near lots of shops, amenities, and similar businesses which attract the sort of workforce they're looking for. Either the private-equity firm would be paying a high rent for that office, or they would own it, in which case they would be due a large land-value tax.
Farmers have been complaining recently that farmland is overvalued compared to the money you can make from it. The reason for this is that it has value as a way for the rich to avoid inheritance tax. If this loophole were closed, the price of farmland would come crashing down, which would be good for profitable farmers wanting to expand while also reducing the amount of land-value tax due.
@@Batmans_Pet_GoldfishThat is not the default
The Office will be taxxed more since city space is valued more then rural areas. Thus, the farmer will generally pay less tax then offices
Lol this video didn't even attempt a discussion of the cons. You have no clue.
@@alphamikeomega5728crashing land value is NOT a good thing for farmers (or anybody). It reduces their collateral directly reducing their access to capital.
But you may be correct in your aa assessment of what it might do to markets.
Honestly, it would be a better alternative to property taxes. Remove Council Tax. And implement LVT.
OK, so long as you know that you could easily end up paying more for the land under your garden than the land under your house. LVT is, and is intended to be, an incentive to develop.
Tax land, not labour.
Land tax squeezes the poor out of their land so the rich can turn it into an asset class.
So Chinese-Hong Kong model? where the local government revenues relies in real estate bubbles to earn money? TLDR used Denmark as a example, but the tax there was reduced last year because was causing an exodus in the countryside and increasing the concentration of land by corporations.
@@darkhorseman8263 not true. I'm in Portugal and I pay about 40€ per year in property tax for a 2 bedroom apartment. it doesn't squeeze anyone. in fact it's quite the opposite it can regulate supply and demand. you just have to make sure there's a good implementation and that the rich pay their fair share and not the poor.
@@darkhorseman8263 "Their land"? The poor don't have land to be squeezed out of! Most of the land is owned by a very small minority. The poor only have their labor, which is taxed by the government and then taken as rent by landlords.
You must rent or your mommy and daddy pay your taxes.
My only concern with LTV is it will incredibly strongly encourage the use and destruction of natural, non productive land. Like parks or national reserves. They would have to be protected by the government and I’m not sure they would.
If the land has no planning permission and no permission to use it productively, then it will have a low value, so it will barely be taxed.
Absolutely no different to the status quo, the reason they don't get built on is because they don't have planning permission. Because they don't have planning permission, the value is very small
There is a reason why those areas are super cheap when on sale, and that is that they are usually economically useless. It would be a case of "you get what you paid for".
yes they would, there was already a bill introduced in 1949 which does just that
Many land is owned by the crown, and crown don't pay taxes
Another good reason to get the monarchy out of government so they get no exemptions.
They fork over much of the profits from the Crown Estate to the Government. It wouldn't exactly make sense to add an additional tax on top of the lump sum given to them.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should just allow the monarchy land to be included in Land Value Tax payments. Charles will destroy his reputation acting all privileged more than he already is. Even more for William. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
In US, churches do not pay taxes. Same argument.
@michaelcap9550 separation of Church and State. But LVT would bypass religion and force them to pay up on their land value. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
The only perfect tax is the one I don’t have to pay.
Most people don’t own valuable real estate so…
Do you rent on a piece of land? Yes, you'll pay.
Do you buy from a shop that sits on a piece of land? Yes, you'll pay.
Do you eat food from a product grown on land? Yes, you'll pay.
@@randomaccount53793It's true, but doesn't seem moral or conducive to human life.
@@randomaccount53793not if my food is imported from the EU, then I only have to pay the extra Brexit import costs
@@randomaccount53793LVT doesn't affect product prices. Landowners and landlords can't increase rent because if they do, they pay more tax because the value goes up. Support the LVT, make taxation unavoidable. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
WE NEED A LAND VALUE TAX AND/OR A PROPORTIONAL PROPERTY TAX TO REPLACE COUNCIL TAX!
THEY WON'T REPLACE IT!!! They'll just add it to the existing one.
@@vlads3283 THEY SHOULD REPLACE COUNCIL TAX WITH PROPORTIONAL PROPERTY TAX! SHOULD IS NOT THE SAME AS WILL!
I ALSO WANT TO SHOUT!
@@_ry_6962 WHISPERING IS WOKE! SHOUTING IS MANLY!
@@_ry_6962 WHISPERING IS WOKE! SHOUTING IS MANLY!
If the UK phased out its current tax regime in favour of LVT and repealed the Town and Country Planning Act, it would go a long way to fixing the country’s economic problems
“There is danger in reckless change, but greater danger in blind conservatism.” - Henry George
Except it's not gonna fix anything but make everyone pay more that can't already avoid being taxed
@ Under LVT, the average British taxpayer would be paying thousands of pounds less each year than they currently do. And the budget would be bigger
@@amphibiousanimations7721I think he's implying the government wouldn't phase out current tax and just add it onto all the other tax which lets be honest would definitely happen the government wants us to suffer
The reason taxes keep going up becomes clear when you look at the government's biggest expenses: pensions and healthcare.
Because the ratio of pensioners to workers keeps increasing, and pensioners live longer (because they don't smoke as much), and the state pension keeps rising, these costs go up faster than the tax base increases, so taxes have to go up no matter who's in government.
@@alphamikeomega5728 Except you don't, but the alternative is less yachts for politicians, and that can't stand
The problem with LVT is that this isn't a tax that would be introduced to take the place of a different one, instead it'd just be yet another tax.
Governments seldom repeal taxes nor voluntarily shrink in size.
And that's my biggest problem with this, why do we need a new tax if we didn't have it a decade ago? What is this funding? An addiction to spending?
If this tax completely removes the need for VAT, you could argue it could do some good since that is a less fair form of taxation than LVT.
But if you just add it on top of existing tax, it is just going to increase the cost to consumers for anything that needs land eg. Rentals, Business Costs, Food.
It'll minimally affect normal land owners. It's targeted towards those who buy up acres of land as investment.
LVT as a tax has benefits in that it encourages building on land, which other taxes do not have as an inherent benefit.
LVT should have 20% as the standard and abolish many Goods and Services Taxes like Property Tax, Inheritance Tax, Sales Tax, Income Tax and others. Also a Citizen's Dividend for any surpluses coming from tax revenue. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
@@PomuLeafEveryday It'll affect everyone lmao, you are talking out of your ass. Just another means to skin Brits because all Labor can be successful at is failing
My biggest worry is that there'd be an upper limit on it, like stamp duty, so the billionaires pay no more than the humble millionaires
If so, then it wouldn't be LVT. That would be a terrible idea and I can't see Labour going that route if they did explore LVT.
we must help our humble millionaires, they need our help
No, but close enough.
"you might have missed this story, on (nothing)" i think something got missed out in the editing haha
"you might have missed this story, on (nothing)"
*nothing cause you watch TLDR* 😎
Having LVT in such a large country as the UK would be a massive W for us Georgists
@@siegechamp2295 you mean all you gaylords
🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰
So a council house built in the 1930 with a 100 foot long garden will pay more than a 5 bed detached newbuild on an estate with 15 foot garden?
i'd chuckle if Labour went ahead and this backfired on them like the farmer/inheritance tax has 😄
depends on implementation. in my country where property tax exists for over 2 hundred years the 30.48 meters long pay cents and the 5 bed detached will pay orders of magnitude more.
@@riskinhos Well that doesn't fill me with confidence this lot had to get other people to buy their clothes for them because they couldn't manage it themselves. How are the going to implement this.
@@grumpygit-sv1cg same way every other country that has it implemented. your example makes zero sense and it's not any relevant
@@riskinhos It's an English thing.
I'm glad you made this video it reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, $34k monthly and a good daughter full of love
wow this awesome I'm 47 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus.
Same here, I believe the Bitcoin ETFs approval will be life changing opportunity for us, with my current portfolio of $108,000 from my investments with my personal financial advisor i totally agree with you
YES!!! that's exactly her name (Mrs Elizabeth Regina Nelsen) so many people have recommended highly about her and I'm just starting with her from Brisbane Australia🇦🇺
Wow! Kind of in shock you mentioned expert, Elizabeth Regina Nelsen. What a coincidence!!
Frequently Asked Questions and solutions:
**Q: How do you decide a property's tax rate?**
-It could be based on auctions every 5 years.
-It could based on the rent (so landlords can't just raise the rent to increase profits, they have to provide a good service to earn money).
-It could be based on property appraisals - The Netherlands already does this for their wealth tax.
-The property-owners self-declares a price and the tax is based on that. But wouldn't people set their house-price too low to pay fewer taxes? No, because this is also the price that the state can instantly buy your house. This is already used in Taiwan.
**Q: Where does the money go?**
- It could be invested in local infrastructure and transit, which makes sense because the property-owners benefit from that so they should also fund it.
- It could be paid back to every citizen, so the majority of people would receive much more than they pay in.
- Some have argued that this could replace every other tax
**Q: "Will public parks and libraries be replaced with high-rises, because that's more economically-productive?**
Parks etc can be left out of the system.
However the govt has incentives to increase their tax revenue, so they probably would turn them into valuable real-estate.
Land Value Tax is explicitly _not_ socialist, and it only incentivises productivity that's monetisable.
**Q: Will the taxes on my home be so high that I'll be forced to sell and move?**
Sadly yes if you live in the city-centre. So LVT would basically be free-market Eminent Domain.
At least you'd get paid a higher value for your property.
But I've seen other versions where the tax ignores your first home, and only affects rental properties/second houses/businesses (i.e. wealth tax in the Netherlands).
**Q: Does the tax increase or decrease gentrification?**
I'm not sure.
It might decrease because it'd be cheaper to buy a house, once speculation and landlording are less profitable. Even goods from local shops could be cheaper, since they spend less on rent and there'd be more market-competition.
On the other hand, community centres could be forced out as said earlier. And this doesn't change that landlords still prefer to rent to richer tenants.
Saying the tories argue to cut tax when they've done nothing but raise income tax lol
Labour would destroy their argument if they pass a 20% LVT and abolish like every single Goods and Services Tax. Maybe help the farmers by abolishing Inheritance Tax and the workers by abolishing Income Tax. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
@@manuelbaliog5211One problem with this line of reasoning. Labour obeys the interests of the business class who give them money, they do not care one bit about elevating taxes on the poor and putting it on the rich (who can actually afford it)
@@averagedemocrat9546this is what I say to stubbornness that you have. Not to mention, it's in the 2024 Manifesto promise to not have taxes hiked on working people.
@@averagedemocrat9546 you never know unless you try. Especially with an open minded Labour Government. Compare this to the last lot of Tories who never even considered ever voting for Legal Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Patients and Proportional Representation on the National Level for 14 long useless years. Tories never once considered a vote.🌹 🌹🌹 🌹
GEORGISM MENTIONED!!!!!!
As a card-carrying Tory and homeowner. My only reservation about this tax is that it will be done as an additional tax and will have exemptions. If this was done instead of stamp duty and everyone pays it, it would be an awesome middle finger to rentiers.
The idea is it would replace property tax effectively cutting tax in the countryside and raising it in big cities where land is in high demand.
As for renters, LVT is their best friend. If a landlord raises rent they're admitting the value of their land has gone up (which will increase the tax they pay) and on the flip side if they reduce rent the tax they pay will go down
The government's two biggest expenses are pensions and healthcare. The reason taxes have been going up, even under the Conservatives, is that there are more retirees per worker, and they're living longer because they don't smoke as much, and the state pension keeps rising.
Till this changes, taxes will stay high no matter who's in government.
A LVT has to be exemption free for it to not be distortive.
@@chrisnuk it should replace income tax for the most part. Income tax is inherently regressive as it taxes efforts/talents/skill (labour).
@@0Expyred That doesn't make any sense? Unless the LVT rate actually changes due to having higher rent, which is unlikely to happen when realistically we're talking about relatively small changes in chargeable rent.
Even if it did, LVT would only be a proportion of the value of the land. So, yes, the landlord might have to pay more tax, but he still ends up with more in his pocket.
the denmark model is such a fuck you to capital flight its amazing
As a beginner what do I need to do? How can I invest,on which platform? If you know any please share.
Yes! I'm celebrating £32K stock portfolio today...
Started this journey with £3K.... I've invested no time and also with the right terms, now I have time for my family an…
when someone is straight forward and good at what she does best. People will always speak for them. For me I can would say give Mrs Olivia Duke of finance education a try and you be happy you did
Started with 5,000$ and Withdrew profits
89,000$
I'm glad to write her tay I do hope she will help handle my paycheck properly☺️☺️☺️
Can I start with as low as $1,000?
There's an issue in the UK where much of the land for whatever reason is not being used for it's most economically most efficient thing to do with it. Land Value Tax basically ensures that over time it makes less sense to do the less profitable thing. I think it's a sort of "obvious" thing to implement. At the same time, if it is implemented in an over zealous way, you'll basically squeeze everyone who is barely holding onto land into losing it. You would need to exempt people who are on paper, the top 1-2% wealthiest people because lots of land is currently being used inefficiently. It would put extreme pressure on the green belt, as legally they cannot develop too much, but financially will be unable to continue operation, leading to either no real use or a change. I'm willing to bet this will be implemented in a way which expressly hurts people it shouldn't and protects people it shouldn't.
Yes it would hurt those who inefficiently use the land or live on edge. Wouldn't it be better for the economy and the community if someone competent gets it who does? There are tons of rich idiots out there who can't and only let land rot.
@@AaronOkeanos Competency is one way to look at it. Many people in the country feel squeezed. How far does this extend though, do we apply it to people who own a single home or is this explicitly wealth redistribution via punishing the wealthy who are inefficient with excesses. I think this could be something that really pushes the country forward, I can also see it being "the thing" that was too much, and forced regular people to change their lives. Ultimately all to change the country in ways lots of people disagree with.
what, like public parks
Maybe start by taxing gifts to politicians.
Yes let's start with a tax that is going to increase revenue by 0.00000001%.Are you dense ?
@@mathyeuxsommet3119 It's a matter of principle.
That's not gonna work. Revenue will be worth nothing. Gift taxes are weak. Same as the inheritance taxes and estate taxes. Support the Land Value Tax. 20% on all land and a Citizens Dividend for the surplus. That way, people are happy and the government is functioning with revenue. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
@ My principals are making the government work I guess we have different ones.
Your the only one on 'matters of principle.' The rest of us are trying to figure out how best to fund the government.
The other problem with any wealth tax you didn't mention is liquidity. If you are taxing the land when it isn't being sold, the owner won't necessarily have the cash to pay the tax. That might force them to sell it. In practice, that might be desirable since it gets the land into the hands of someone that will make more use of it, but when an elderly widow is forced to sell her home because she can't afford the land value tax, there will be outrage from exactly the people proposing this tax.
exactly! this is actually a pro-rich tax. It makes it harder for poor people to own property. If you are asset rich cash poor you can't afford it. It will just put more property in the hands of the wealthy and put more lower income families into bad acommadation.
Land Value Tax (LVT) isn’t inescapable-those looking to own land can simply choose to buy it elsewhere. Consider someone who enjoys owning a woodland for activities like fishing and hunting. Suddenly, that land becomes heavily taxed under LVT. Faced with this burden, they sell the property and move to a country where land is cheaper, purchasing a similar space there.
Back in the UK, the land they once carefully maintained is repurposed into something uninspiring, like a paintball arena, or any other venture that skirts the need for planning permission. The real issue isn’t just the lack of land taxation; it’s that the UK’s planning laws are absurdly restrictive and counterproductive!
A plot in the woodlands wouldn't be "heavily taxed" under LVT, and it wouldn't turned into something "uninspiring". Woodlands are much more cheaper compared to lots in the cities for a reason.
The new owner would pay the same LVT the old owner would have paid. The tax hasn't been avoided. It has just been paid by someone else. And the fact that you are selling the obligation to pay the tax alongside the land will be reflected in the price you get for that land, so indirectly it is still paid by the old owner.
*Government be like:*
“We’re going to build 500 paintball arenas and 250 go-kart tracks-ahem-I mean, 750 ‘community centers.’
@@BaileyMagikz exactly 😁
You mention the power landholders have. Could you do a video on that, specifically on how they influence the government? Labour has a huge majority and claims to be the party of the working class, theoretically they have the power and motivation to introduce a land tax but I know that it probably wont happen.
I love the idea of Georgist land tax.
But please don’t let Labour implement it. They’ll just horrendously ruin it.
If the Lib Dems did it I'd trust them, but I don't trust Labour with anything they're worse than the Tories and that's saying a lot.
Well, I don't know which other party can be trusted to implement it.
Oh ok. What other party would impliment it?
@@oliverleonard7730 you never know unless you try. Especially with an open minded Labour Government. Compare this to the last lot of Tories who never even considered ever voting for Legal Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Patients and Proportional Representation on the National Level for 14 long useless years. Tories never once considered a vote.🌹 🌹🌹 🌹
If you don't trust a government in this. You will just waste 5 years of possible growth. By then the UK may be toast if reforms aren't in place which is why Labour were elected. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
5:00 planning permission isn't a big drawback. As it is, there are tonnes of sites with planning permission granted but nothing built
There are also places where you grant planning permission and the land value increases a thousand fold. This shows that, at least in some areas, planning permission is the bottleneck.
Ah yes. Reporting on the color yellow has been very biased lately.
Colour blind people have been up in arms!
Credit where credit is due, this is a good idea. Lets see it labour care more about their people or their overlords
🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰
*Land Value Tax....*
ah yes lets tax people for owning land.... (oh wait we already do its council tax , they charge if you build or don't and this takes the mick double tax
this will cause more middle class who ain't rich and have small bit of land to become poor and struggle to build anything for themselfs)
Here is a simple test to see if a law is viable:
Will this negatively affect the rich? If yes then The law is not viable.
There is no chance this is implemented in any meaningful way, as much as I'd like to see it. Rich have far too outsized and influence and they won't give an inch of ground if they aren't forced to.
Land value tax is the way to go. The arguments against are purely about the mechanics of valuation, not exactly an unsurmountable problem. Use the revenue to scrap Council tax, business rates, IHT, Capital gains and then reduce VAT and corporation tax by as much as possible (revenue neutral). Then reform planning, which is supposedly happening anyway, and watch this country boom.
GEORGISM RAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
The Danish figured it out, so it clearly isn't impossible to do. The UK might even just copy their method as it seems to work.
It's also funny to see how broken the UK is. Brexit benefited the rich, this plan might not make it because the rich are opposed. The UK is ruled by the 1%. They worried about the EU, when they should have worried about their own government not representing its own people.
The UK is a sad undemocratic joke.
BAAAAAAASED
As a small farmer hearing this makes me sick with worry.
Who cares about you ?
@@mathyeuxsommet3119 People who want to EAT? 🤦
Yeah, exactly. I mean, if a car would run you over, stop, then back up and make sure you're dead, I'd shrug too. Here lies Mattieux Sommet. A car turned him into a blood stain . Previously, he was a shistain. Upgrades, people. Upgrades.
The Land Value Tax should replace the Inheritance Tax and the threshold should only affect wealthy farmers with hundreds of millions of pounds worth in resources. I hope that should be the case so you wouldn't be affected.
@@manuelbaliog5211it SHOULD, but it WONT
The perfect tax that was not created by financiers, economists, nor bankers.
Cut taxes on the poor/consumer class and raise taxes on the rich/bigger buisnesses
That's how the LVT works in practice. UK in 1910-1920s with People's Budget had the LVT in place. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
The good thing about Land Value Tax (LVT) is to discourage mass homeownership which is the root cause of asset bubbles, especially in countries like the UK. This will force homeowners to use their properties for actual habilitation or sell them off after not paying LVT.
omg tldrs gonna talk about land value tax this is gonna be so fun
In the US we have what's called property tax and it's exactly that. You are taxed a percentage of the value of the land (and buildings and location increase value) but it's not federal. It's almost exclusively a local tax. It's the largest part of how counties and cities are funded. And whenever a town or county need new infrastructure or funding for schools we vote on a levy to increase property taxes by marginal amounts
YES,THERE IS NO ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT.
It makes rich landowners sad😢.
It will ruin my plans to play ck3 irl as a peasant 😢
@@cameronwixcey9692and sadly the same people who don’t like lvt have a ton of influence is politics…
@@cameronwixcey9692 no! not the peasant plans! D:
The only argument against it is if its in addition to existing taxes rather than a replacement for.
There are lots of arguments against it. I don't control the value of the land my house is on. If a big company buys up all the land around me raising the land value why should I get punished with higher tax that might force me to sell my house?
Land value tax benefits corporations and the wealthy and punishes poor people for trying to own anything.
Sounds reasonable, main concern would be making sure landlords dont use it as an excuse to greatly increase rent to compensate for their losses
Valuing and taxing land is very common in Australia. Most if not all states have a land tax. And most states (not NSW) have a capital improved valuation as well, which is used for council rates (tax) and often the emergency services levy that funds things like the fire brigades. So, it can absolutely be done. There's enough land sold as vacant which allows them to extrapolate to value all properties as vacant. Usually both values are done, statewide, every couple of years. Victoria, Australia's second most populous state, does both capital improved (land plus buildings etc) and unimproved (land only) annually. Councils provide building information (building areas/sizes, materials, etc) to the state's valuers, and they use this info along with actual sales to extrapolate across all properties, generating a theoretical value if sold on 1 January each year. Owners have a 2 month window to formally object, annually, but in practice the number of objections is extremely low (in my council, 200-300 out of 48,000 properties).
The USA also has property taxes that achieve similar outcomes to land value tax. That's something critics often miss when they say it's unworkable or that valuation is too hard - the tax doesn't need to be perfect, just achieve similar outcomes.
How much vacant land gets sold in the middle of a city? I can see how you can get a realistic estimate of the value of rural land, but for urban land it is much more difficult to separate out the building value and the land value.
@@linrichardson8250 US property taxes are on the whole value of the property, not just the land.
Having some surveying background myself, I would have thought some form of the residual value method used by estate surveyors to value a piece of land for future development would be suitable to separate out the value of the land itself. Repeating this valuation process for hundreds of thousands of properties up and down the country would be quite an undertaking however.
I wonder if for existing properties home insurance data could be used. I'm thinking the property value minus the estimated rebuild cost would leave a very basic estimate of the land value?
7:42 yeah I did miss this story on… Guess i do lean right 😂
Yeah the right does miss aye 😂
That assumes that the value of all land is equal or that holding an equal amount of land to someone else is equal. It's predicated on quantity not quality. This, the business owner who runs a fortune 500 hedge fund out of an office building gets taxed less than the farmer barely making enough to get by.
This is one of the many areas where the georgists fundamentally fail.
Donald Trump immergin as the US president things have beginning to reshape in its compact form, Government salary earners are now surviving, Investment is now Safe, Him being Supportive in Digital assets has made Bitcoin and Crypto currencies to have a means of Surviving.
I am new to the digital marketing world and don't understand how it really works. A friend told me investing with a professional company is the best strategy for beginners and busy investors, but for months now I've been making so research and haven't found any.please any recommendations.
Speaking of which, I have the opportunity to invest in NFTcapital partner which has been in the forefront of a revolution in the Digital marketing system and what got my attention is thier transparency and mode of Operation which is way to Comforting in the investment industry as it stands.
NFT is an investment company that is properly registered in Australia with worldwide recognition and consistent production.
A lot of folks in the US🇺🇸 and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus.
Big thanks to the company admin her top notch guidance and expertise on digital market changed the game for me.
The tax should be based on how much the owner actually makes. So if a bank owns it, it's taxed based on its profits. If it moves its offices, the taxes follow them. If they moved into a shack, the shack would thus be taxed its real value. But if a retiree moved into that same shack, the tax would be far less.
More land value tax content, more Georgism content, MOREEE!!!
So basically, this is a tax meant to facilitate gentrification and further farmland loss? Because if taxes increase based on surrounding development, then this means that expensive housing built next to low income housing or farmland would cause the taxes to increase to the point where those properties would be sold for further expensive developments, thereby making housing and food less affordable over the long term.
Shouldn't we be looking into reducing taxes rather than finding new ways to screw us.
*Taxes aren't the issue, it's who is being taxed. Which is primarily the poor, the burden needs to be shifted to the top 5%*
Someone say Georgism????
So the incentive becomes to build giant and continuous apartment blocks and reduce/remove gardens, single story housing, and farmland.
Yes.
Planning is still a thing, and a house with a garden is built up land, so it shouldn't attract a tax higher than current council tax. Its the vast tracts of unimprived land, or the latge landlords who would be forced to pay.
@@DrOktobermensch "Planning is still a thing,"
Planning determines the value of the land. If the planners say that your street can be built up high, under LVT you pay for that right exactly as much as the residents who take advantage of it. You're penalised for underusing valuable land.
Farmland has use value.
Yes to reducing huge gardens and building taller. Both of these are eminently positive.
Farmland wouldn't be reduced; you'd still need to get permission to build on it so it's no change from now. And, if we can build up more easily, then we have less pressure to convert farmland into new housing!
Very interesting topic, I dig the tax tbh
You will find how interesting it is by watching videos from Mr Beat and BritMonkey on Georgism and the Land Value Tax. It's here on TH-cam.
🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰
I agree with it for areas like London but for random little rural patches of land the trumped up value is bad from an ecological standpoint. People having big gardens which are essentially extentions of the countryside shouldn't feel like they have to develop their gardens and deprive wildlife of a potential habitat.
Yes they should.It’s not nature it’s their garden,if it was nature then it would be public land.
It should be in all places but the value will automatically be higher in cities. Making investment happen in rural areas. I also think that there will be amendments like LVT on unused land and property so that it will be popular and supported by the British people.
LVT gas to apply everywhere, or it will be avoidable.
Gardens are not "extensions of the countryside", they are ecological dead zones. LVT would protect animal habitats by incentivising us to build more densely reducing the need for urban expansion
The undeveloped land value comes from the planning permission available. If the nature of their garden is worth protecting, the land won't have planning permission, and the tax will remain cheap.
Depends what that garden is used for . Lvt will need to have a system that has different values between private land , public land and functional land and non functional.
So someone having a garden to grow vegetables or a small flower garden is functional . A big football field lawn garden is not functional
A private swimming pool or tennis court is not functional
So a semi public land like allotments will be lower taxed and a shared community garden will be tax free
Now we need a luxury tax, where you get taxed stupid amounts on cummulative property that surpasses 100m2 floor area. People need housing, not landlords!
Never understood why councils aren't all funded entirely this way
I must not understand why there is any objections to LVT. My province in Canada has a body that assesses the value of my land, and separately, the value of my house. The two together are what I am taxed on. If I tear down my house, then I only pay taxes on the assessed value of the land only. The taxes are collected by my municipality to pay for municipal things like police, roads, water, etc. "Approximately 42% of taxes collected are on behalf of other regional agencies like Translink and the Provincial Government (school tax). The amount of municipal tax you pay is dependent on your property type and your property's assessed value, as determined by BC Assessment."
Property value assessments (land and building) are done all the time, especially when you sell your property. If my province can assess the value of land and the value of the building on the land, why is anyone saying it's very difficult to do?
"If I tear down my house, then I only pay taxes on the land."
LVT says the opposite. You pay tax on the value of the land, and it's up to you to make it worth the cost to you. LVT is a deliberate incentive not to leave land idle.
Maybe ask your local government to remove your right to build on it. That woud reduce the value of your land.
Georgists, UNITE! Land Value Tax must be passed in the summer budget statement. Campaign as hard as you can fellow British Georgists! Make sure it will be in the budget for years to come in government! 🔰🔰🔰🔰
What is the tax system right now then for realestate?
@@wetadventure3164property tax and council tax. LVT hasn't been in the system since the People's Budget is gone in the 1920s. If the LVT will be fully implemented again. Taxation on Goods and Services along with Property Tax should be abolished. Income Tax should be abolished too. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
The aristocracy and gentry alone own 30%. That’s significantly more than the amount of English land owned by the public sector, homeowners, conservation charities. The Royal Family and the Church of England put together (a total of 17.4%). Will they pay a tax?
idk if i agree with them but georgists are adorable in their advocacy
🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰
Yes! Excellent stuff let’s pump this up the feed
Do you think this cost wont be passed on to renters/business leases/agriculture?
The more important question is why do we suddenly need a new tax?
What will it be funding?
Will other taxes be reduced as a result?
Is the government planning to confiscate land from those behind on payments?
What makes this different from countries that only allow 99 year leases, doesn't this erode long standing property ownership rights?
Are they planning to increase the pension for retired homeowners who wont be able to afford it?
New taxes are never a one way street, rich landowners don't need to avoid it, they just pass the cost on like they always do and cause higher inflation.
A property legislated free market will always allocate resources more efficiently than governments. They need to legislate property and stop tring to meddle with peoples' decisions.
Land Value Tax doesn't get passed on to renters as the landlord raises the value of their property by increasing the rent. Causing them to pay more tax as a result. Farmers should be treated with abolition of Goods and Services Taxes like Property Tax, Inheritance Tax, Sales Tax, reducing VAT to 2.5%, and others. That way if they have problems left, the government isn't to blame. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
The point is that the land owners would be forced to do something more productive with any land they hold. If they pass on the costs but another land owner has done something more productive with their land and can offer the same service but for less cost then free market, properly regulated, economics will ensure the most productive land is rewarded. You could easily look to reduce/remove other tax’s, such as the majority of VAT which is a regressive tax and makes little sense. But there are other taxes you could look to remove with differing effects.
@@petergoodwin7038I understand why people worry about empty, non-productive land. Shouldn't the law be focused on just that (not that I agree with it). There are three major issues I can see with it:
One huge issue is the assumption that empty land is the reason for our problems. I think it is more of a symptom of other issues with the economy where it is more advantageous to leave it empty than taking the risk of doing something with it like building houses.
One further issue is the assumption that all land needs to be used efficiently. Suddenly gardens and forests on private property become dead weight and need to be developed. It is an incentive for you not to use the land how you want, which is very dystopian.
The final issue I can think of is the assumption that there is no disadvantage to having empty land. Usually you cannot insure bare land unless there is development going on, that is a huge risk in the event of natural disasters. Also, for those that finance land, they cannot deduct interest costs unless it is being used for business purposes, which is a pretty large incentive to develop it. What I'm saying is that there is an opportunity cost to land banking.
I think the real problem is that there is so much friction for businesses, rentals, property developers, and land zoning etc.
I think a great example is interest deductibility on residential properties that the UK has, and NZ tried to do. If there is no tax incentive to rent out a property, the risk of bad tenants (and not being able to claim back damages) outweighs the benefit of renting it out, so landlords keep the property empty reducing rental supply. This is the same for businesses, except they just leave the country if there is too much friction.
@@petergoodwin7038 What is considered "productive" for any land one holds? I can understand the reasoning for lands in business districts or industrial areas. However, unless the planning system provides different LVT (Land Value Tax) rates for different purposes, applying LVT to a residential area or home seems counterintuitive. If I'm a retiree, why should I keep paying tax on land that is meant for my own retirement? A retirement home will never have a "productive" value in the traditional sense. Are we expecting a 80yo to suddenly find ways to make their property productive just to pay the tax?
For this to work, planning permissions have to be abolished. So this will never happen
To be fair, LVT could be amended to exclude property that's resident and/or below a set threshold so that regular homeowners aren't affected.
@@zombiedude101z the tax won’t be high in suburban areas because other houses don’t really increase the value of your property. It will basically be a cheaper form of council tax (assuming they get rid of it(I hope they do))
More exemptions means more exploitable loopholes...
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 you don't understand how amendments work. They get rid of loopholes, not create new ones. If this tax is implemented, then Goods and Services Taxes should be abolished along with Property Tax. Income Tax should be abolished too. 20% with a Citizen's Dividend on revenue. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
I'm finding it hard to see how this _doesn't_ lead to the further consolidation of land ownership under corporate investment. If this tax encourages owners to sell land, why wouldn't market forces lead to this land being bought up by those with the deepest pockets, deep enough that taxes aren't a barrier to affordability? Just because they can't avoid it doesn't mean they can't afford it.
Another tax? Income tax rate 45% at only 50k, VAT 20% to steal what the income tax doesn't. death tax kicks in at only 325K, Petrol duty 53p per litre. The UK GDP per capita is pretty low and the standard of living reflects it. Last thing you need is less money in your pocket.
The government's biggest expenses are pensions and healthcare. The reason taxes keep going up is that there are more retirees per worker, and retirees are living longer, and the state pensions keeps rising.
Till this changes, taxes will keep rising no matter who's in power.
You don't pay 45% income tax at £50k. Between £50,271 and £125,140 you pay higher rate, which is 40%. The 45% additional tax rate kicks in above that.
That would just encourage living in high rise buildings, since a small plot of land would support many flats ...
Fred Harrison has wrote a bunch of books on this topic. He talked about how he made millions of Pounds off of the Jubilee line extension without raising a finger. I think that he shines a light on this topic in a great way. Great to read, especially if you are from the UK.
LVT is dead duck. The value of the land without taking account the buildings on it, is a mythical figure, it has no basis in reality. You would have to revalue the entire UK roughly every 5-10 years which is an enormous task and therefore an enormous cost, and that is before you take into account people appealing against the value assigned to their land. Then there is the problem that it would be impossible to value all the land at the same time so some people would be taxed at 2024 values and others might not be valued until 2026.
Then there is the politics of the issue, which is one reason why Council Tax is both hated and national politicians are so reluctant to tackle Council Tax. The problem can be summarised as the "little old granny" problem. The issue is how do you deal with someone who bought their home 40-50 years ago when the area was cheap and run down, they are now a widowed pensioner and the area has become very expensive and chic but they are living on a state pension. They could not afford to pay a LVT. The left cannot say that the granny should move out because they know that ranks of hypocrisy when they have campaigned against the bedroom tax. The right has no interest in LVT because of the reasons set out in the video.
Do some research into the LVT and Georgism, because a lor of your complaints have long been considered and taken into account.
It's hard to account for an undeveloped land value tax, but I wonder how well you could approximate it based on the most recent sale price of nearby land, when the sale took place, what development was on the land and what planning permission was available. If the tax is only a small proportion of the estimated undeveloped value, then it's not a big issue if the estimate is somewhat inaccurate.
As for the asset-rich cash-poor, there are a few things to say. First of all, taxing land would lower its value and thus the tax due (unless the land can still be rented for a large amount, in which case, the cash-poor owner is economically equivalent to a tenant in the same property with an indefinite lease and a large enough income to pay fot the lease). Second, allowing those with a low income to hoard our limited supply of high-value housing - which will typically be near both good amenities and good jobs - prevents those who could be doing those good jobs from doing them. Similarly, so does making it more expensive to employ people by taxing income instead of land value.
A system which encourages rich unproductive people to move out of areas with a lot of productive potential so that others can move in is a good system.
If it's impossible then how come the Danish make it work for them?
You sound like a land owner.
LTV can be estimated based on the sale price (land + house) and then subtract the price to build the house. Either the original price to construct it + inflation - depreciation, or how much it would cost to build an equivalent house right now.
LTV doesn’t have to be “exact” either, good-enough estimate made in a way that’s fair is good enough.
The granny problem can be fixed by making an exception to tax on the resident you live in.
@@bzuidgeest "If it's impossible then how come the Danish make it work for them? "
It's referred to as a "municipal" tax in the video. It probably only applies to a tiny fraction of land in Denmark.
"You sound like a land owner."
An argument stands or falls on its own merits.
Always the blocker are the people in power that benefit from owning everything and leave everybody suffering with the high housing costs. I think the best course of action would be to streamline planning permissions and then implement this but I also think there should be an exception on your primary residence otherwise is another burden on people trying to get on the housing ladder
The only perfect tax, is no tax.
Never heard of a pigovian tax?
The LVT will get rid of so many taxes on working people. Income Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Inheritance Tax, any Tax on Goods and Services like your food, groceries and fuel. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
There are good arguments for one, companies should also be forced to develop land they buy.
The answer isnt more tax the answer is less government.
The government's biggest expenses are pensions and healthcare. The fact that we have more retirees per worker, and they're living longer, and the state pension keeps rising, is why taxes keep rising - even under the Conservatives.
You never know unless you try. Especially with an open minded Labour Government. Compare this to the last lot of Tories who never even considered ever voting for Legal Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Patients and Proportional Representation on the National Level for 14 long useless years. Tories never once considered a vote.🌹 🌹🌹 🌹
I can't believe people are actually arguing against an LTV in the comments lol. Is this a landlord astrosurf campaign or just dumb people?
so there are some real concerns. Imagine you are poor, just making ends meet. Then you inherit a property, you become cash poor but asset rich, with a land tax you are expected to use your cash to pay for your asset. However this poor person has no cash so they are forced to sell the asset, so back to bad cheap housing they go. For a lot of young people their only hope of getting into good quality housing is inheritance, so under a LVT these actually quite poor people will be taxed for the audacity of wanting to live in that inherited property and not sell it off to a wealthy person.
An even worse scenario happens if agricultural land is not excluded. Especially with the so called tractor tax, you pay a fortune to inherit the farm, then you have a big tax bill each year to keep the farm. Again farmers are often asset rich cash poor. So you encourage small farmers to sell up, and you get farms owned by large corporations or millionaires who can afford the tax.
Ultimatly this tax favours the rich who can afford to pay tax on land, and disadvantages poor people whose only asset is a property and won't be able to pay, so property gets siphoned off to the wealthy.
This has a real potential to be very damaging. For example I know of a land owner who's holds quite a bit of very picturesque and pristine land, it's a real beauty spot. Being a nice guy he left it open to the public for them to enjoy. Sadly that was not what happened. He found litter, used nappies, discarded single use barbecues, and worst of all, human excrement. He had to take the hard decision to close it off again. At least that land is now being cared for as it should be, but if he had to pay a "tax" on it, he may have to sell it off then what happens to it. He's making no profit from this land. He is just a responsible custodian of it. Who would purchase it and with no intent to develop it? No one, I guess. These lefty ideas sound good to some but, in reality, can be very damaging and usually a bad idea. This is in effect. Labour cash grab phrased in a way that would appeal to some.
It's not a lefty idea. The state would be the one who maintains the commons, not individuals.
If he can’t make profit from the land that mean it’s value is very low therefore the tax will be low.Why are people suddenly becoming stupid and not understanding how taxes work.
It's rather insulting to call people stupid, I think you may want to consider looking up the phrase "Dunning Kruger" before you post . In the example I quoted, the land in question is quite a few acres, so it wouldn't be a small tax at all.
@@Beorn. Stupid is indeed insulting but quiet accurate here since you don’t seem to understand that the tax is on the value not the size of land and therefore the numbers of acres doesn’t matter.
@@Beorn. The land being a few acres that no one else wants because it's in the middle of nowhere means the LVT collected will be very low.
I think you're the one that needs to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It would be a major upgrade.
"perfect tax" for people who dont own land because they pay nothing, but if you are a farmer who owns land but doesnt get much income from it then you get shafted by the tax man who wants his cut regardless of it you earn any money or not.... so its a crap tax for anyone who owns land that is not rich.. and btw there already is a tax on land tied to the value of the land, its called Council Rates.
Become a better farmer then or sell it off to someone who can be a better farmer than you.
You silly,If you don’t get any income from it then the it’s worthless and you won’t pay much tax on that.Have you finish high school ?
Land can be used in so many ways.
Not sure how it works in the UK (since I have zero interest to do some research) but in other countries there are alternative incentives like:
planting a forest...
But here are a few other ideas to raise land value and not crying about farm yields:
- turn it into a nature reserve
- park
- a relatively low cost entertainment maybe? Mountain bike park or off road motorbike/car park (IF you really have that size and health and safety approval)
- wind and solar farms are quite popular right now
or
OR!
rent it out?
Because the "perfect" tax is all about the land. Ownership can and will be split to land owner and property owner.
And we all know the end consumer pays the bill not the owner...
@@mathyeuxsommet3119my fellow Georgist, please stop insulting everyone who is concerned with the Land Value Tax. I know they may not like it. But insulting them will not convince them to believe. Best that we get as many people on our side to campaign for LVT and make it happen especially in Great Britain. We might even slowly but surely save a country that way. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
@@NK-vd8xi Aka a megacorporation which will ensure 1 or 2 companies own all the food production? I am sure that will end well.
Tax wealth, not work!
Fed up of inequality!!!
that is no good for the poor... They do that in Switzerland and that just feels like your house never belongs to you. Some owners are better off keeping depts with the lending bank rather than paying their property off simply because the land taxes became higher than the bank's loan.
No they don't have lvt in Switzer you don't know what you're talking about.
Feels over Reals crowd here.
I'm just trying to understand why that Danish guy still remains a Danish citizen. I mean, the Scottish government taxes him, in Scotland. Which is fair. But then the Danish government also taxes him? I suppose old habits die hard, and the Danegeld must be paid. No matter if you're a foreigner or a Dane.
Ah yes, the poor owns land that can have high valuation. Who will think of the poor poverty stricken land owner class of people???
Why would poor people buy a house over renting one .
Georgism implemented in the UK would be a dream. LVT and planning reform would project us ahead of the OECD!
I can’t really see it working. Even if there was a way to calculate the land value of every property, there would be literally millions of disputes from people disagreeing with it. What if the same plot of land with a house on keeps increasing in value and the current occupants can no longer afford the LVT?
Also, how would it work for flats?
The current system seems fine except for the fact it doesn’t scale well with the ultra wealthy. Just do something different for them as that’s it sorted.
There is something called self assessment or harberger tax.Look it up it solves this problem.LVT doesn't solve every problem.
Correct. Trust the left to want something that is impossible to implement. 🤦
You can sell the home if you can't afford the land tax. Premium urban real estate is not an entitlement
We already do many things different for them with specific tax exemptions and systems that only work if you are ultra wealthy...
If they cant afford it then the land will be repossessed and they will be evicted
How about a spare home tax where any public servant with more than one home has to pay 100% of it's value in tax to help ease the national debt they have in their offshore bank accounts.
Congratulations you idea is useless.
That will not work. Politicians aren't all wealthy. Most wealthy people are the businesspeople and landowners. Support the LVT to get rid of any tax avoidance schemes. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
@@manuelbaliog5211 Most politicians have more than one home, so yes it will work, they also take a million a year in salary and expenses each...
The point is to apply taxes to the politicians not clear the national debt, we could do that by selling the US debt we own for some stupid reason.
Profiteering in government should be illegal, lying and tax evasion an immediate prison sentence.
@@manuelbaliog5211 Ah yes, a 77 Brigade shill trying to protect their masters in Davos...
@@manuelbaliog5211 ^^77 Brigade BOT ALERT^^
A forever tax on land means your land is never paid off free and clear. Miss a tax payment and see what happens.
I’ve always noticed how right wingers will twist meanings , it a land VALUE tax and the way landowners have behaved the past 30 years all over the world , it’s the least we should do
Which is the point, you didn't make the land. It's a natural resource you are occupying.
Also, given the alternative is the government owning your income forever, it's no contest for me which is preferable.
Council tax was, initially, a land value tax. It is paid by renters and not landlords. If this is implemented the costs will directly be passed on to renters
"If this is implemented the costs will directly be passed on to renters"
Since the value of that bit of land comes from the fact that it is rented out then of course the cost will be passed on to renters. There is literally nowhere else that the money can come from.
Landlords charge as much as they can get away with. The price they charge isn't based on maintenance costs plus some profit margin, but on location, location, location.
Tax land value, and instead of that money going to the landowner, it means we don't have to tax productive activity like income, spending and business.
LVT would be amazing.
Why? The last thing we want are more taxes. Or as a peasant do you like the government taxing you? It'll hit your pocket somewhere if you know anything about economics.
@someguy-of9hqthere is a reason It was called the single tax, it’s meant to replace other taxes.
If Keir Starmer & Rachel Reeves get this pushed through, this would really be the greatest government the UK has had in decades.
Why do you keep saying "land owners"? It's clear who this new tax is going to punish: farmers. Apparently cutting subsidies and over-regulating wasn't enough for the british farmer...
But I guess the British countryside would look better as an housing centre for illegal migrants
It's to punish any one who owns a house as well, as they will say you are a land owners, the poor in council houses will be exempt as they are freeloaders anyway
Dont be such a shit farmer then and make your land worth occupying.
Either do that or sell it off to someone who can.
Yes it would.
It is wealthy landowners, yes that includes farmers. But imagine, abolition of taxes due to the high revenue of the Land Value Tax. Any Good and Services Taxes should disappear. Inheritance Tax may even be abolished. Even Income Tax, the Tories will be decimated. Immigrants should not be a blaming stick especially when many illegals are mostly being deported. 🔰🔰🔰🔰
Talk about doing a new tax but no details of the new tax. I would have to say no at this point.
Please please please please please please