tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post440723476089029850..comments2023-10-19T01:44:50.017+01:00Comments on Liberal Polemic: A house-price crash will save the Government from finding a policy solutionLiberal Polemichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-45225732070086617942007-06-01T10:49:00.000+01:002007-06-01T10:49:00.000+01:00Ah, the Lebensraum argument.Actually, the UK isn’...Ah, the <A HREF="http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa110899.htm" REL="nofollow"> Lebensraum</A> argument.<BR/><BR/>Actually, the UK isn’t <I> particularly</I> densely populated. We’re about on a par with Germany and Vietnam and far more roomy than Belgium or the Netherlands, let alone South Korea or Taiwan.<BR/><BR/>What is more, we need immigration to make up for our poor birth rate. We’re not currently sustaining the population on our own, so unless we either breed more or welcome more immigrants, we’re going to have real trouble paying for pensions and public services in twenty or thirty years time.<BR/><BR/>As a solution for the price of housing, setting “the immigration rate …to slightly less than the emigration rate” is a rather long-term approach. It would take decades to have an effect. Surely it would be easier just to build the houses we need.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-83399079237900664762007-06-01T01:01:00.000+01:002007-06-01T01:01:00.000+01:00A more obvious way to improve the availability of ...A more obvious way to improve the availability of land and housing is to reduce the population of an already ridiculously crowded country.<BR/><BR/>Simply put, the immigration rate needs to be set to slightly less than the emigration rate. The falling birth rate in the UK will combine with this to give us all the breathing space we need, and perhaps we can all hope to be able to affor dhouses with gardens!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-9928007967731584582007-05-29T19:34:00.000+01:002007-05-29T19:34:00.000+01:00A great write-up and very welcome, since I missed ...A great write-up and very welcome, since I missed the program (I guess it's probably on watch again for another day or so).<BR/><BR/>incidentally, it seems to me that we have all but dropped any residential property tax, including the 1% on homes over a million, now, and some of us are very frustrated with that.<BR/><BR/>If you don't mind, I think I'll link to these two posts (this one and the explanation to Julian) on the new <A HREF="http://www.1909.org.uk" REL="nofollow">1909 Group website.</A>Jock Coatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15550558005508328017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-7073764972125076622007-05-29T14:45:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:45:00.000+01:00Julian,Your question is too important to answer in...Julian,<BR/><BR/>Your question is too important to answer in a simply reply, so I have explained it in length in a <A HREF="http://liberalpolemic.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-asset-rich-income-poor-can-afford.html" REL="nofollow"> separate post </A>.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-32090757779079932982007-05-28T20:10:00.000+01:002007-05-28T20:10:00.000+01:00I must confess that I don't fully understand LVT, ...I must confess that I don't fully understand LVT, especially how it's possible to tax something so illiquid.<BR/><BR/>For example: suppose I have owned the land my house is on since 1990 - in which time its value has increased from £100k to £1m. Yet I am a school teacher and my income during that period has merely risen from £18k to £28k per annum; enough to live off but no more. I have no money investments beyond my pension. How do I pay a LVT on the £900k that my land's value has increased by? I have not seen that £900k cash and never will do because my lazy kids are still living at home and anyway I am sentimentally attached to the house so I'll live in it until I die.Haribohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11353292402895107855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-49869574883975600762007-05-25T20:12:00.000+01:002007-05-25T20:12:00.000+01:00I agree that skipping the feeble intermediate meas...I agree that skipping the feeble intermediate measure of taxing property by 1% and moving swiftly on to taxing land value thoroughly would be much preferable. It would also give us a clear and distinctive policy edge.<BR/>I also agree that LVT should be paid directly to the Local Authority, as the proportion of LA income generated from local taxation is thereby increased considerably.<BR/>This would not only lower the <I>amount</I> of income tax collected by central government, but would also facilitate the simplification of central tax structures by the introduction of, say, a higher contribution threshold and the flattening of tax bands.<BR/>The rational for road pricing still evades me; I'll have to give it some thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-91255360138085818622007-05-25T15:55:00.000+01:002007-05-25T15:55:00.000+01:00James,There is (or should be) two strands to this....James,<BR/><BR/>There is (or should be) two strands to this.<BR/><BR/>1) Road-user pricing to deal with congestion<BR/><BR/>2) A carbon tax that makes the polluter pay via. the cost of petrol.<BR/><BR/>I do not agree that Lib Dems should discourage road use. What we should be doing is ensuring that road-use accurately reflects the costs, and does not pass the costs onto others through dumping it into the atmosphere and letting others pay to clean it up (or reduce emissions elsewhere, or whatever).<BR/><BR/>The <I>effect</I> will be that driving is more expensive so less people will do it, which is fine. But the <I>aim</I> will be to leave people free to decide how they will travel but require them to pay the full costs resulting from their choice.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-82221553748689607862007-05-25T15:29:00.000+01:002007-05-25T15:29:00.000+01:00Is road user pricing the right policy? It depends...Is road user pricing the right policy? It depends on what you are trying to achieve. It is certainly the right policy to resolve more efficient use of roads and to reduce congestion, but it is constantly being cited as the solution to encourage fuel efficiency and discourage road use, which it manifestly is not.<BR/><BR/>Lib Dem policy is to cut environmental taxes and replace them with road user pricing. Until this commitment is rescinded, I can't support this policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-65165029260505345502007-05-25T14:41:00.000+01:002007-05-25T14:41:00.000+01:00A good question, and one to which I do not have an...A good question, and one to which I do not have an adequate explanation.<BR/><BR/>The policy papers states "...although it might be necessary to introduce a property tax on the basis of existing property prices initially, in the longer run it would be advantageous to base a property tax on the unimproved land value of the site. Eventually the system for valuation of domestic land cold be integrated with that for Site Value Rating..."<BR/><BR/>I've no idea why it is felt necessary to impose a property (including improvements) tax in the first instance. I agree with the thrust of your question, which is that we should move straight to land value taxation and never tax improvements.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-72556329450620379562007-05-25T14:27:00.000+01:002007-05-25T14:27:00.000+01:00"The Lib Dem proposals are rather more modest; the..."The Lib Dem proposals are rather more modest; they would tax property values at 1 per cent per annum, with a view in the long-run to taxing only land values and not the value of improvements."<BR/><BR/>If land value tax is the best solution (which most economists would agree) why propose to tax property values (which most economists would say is bad)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com