Idiot left wing fuckwits

So CLASS manages to gear itself up and demand a Land Value Tax.

It should be levied on all land except for that which lies under ordinary people’s homes.

Idiot left wing fuckwits.

31 thoughts on “Idiot left wing fuckwits”

  1. Sebastian Weetabix

    Fuckwits yes, idiots no. They really do want us all to be serfs, with the courageous state playing the part of landlord/lord of the manor.

  2. I am extraordinary – does that mean I get taxed while some boring useless millionaire is exempt?
    No 1 son is extraordinary but his flat is above some ordinary people so do they want to apply LVT to his neighbour’s ceiling?

  3. Not read your blog for ages, but rediscovered upon being forced to give up Google Reader. You used to argue your points.

    Tim adds: The point being that the entire point of an LVT is that *all* land gets charged the tax on its unimproved value. Yea, even that under peoples’ houses. Especially in fact.

  4. I don’t know anything about LVT. Does this mean that farmers would be hugely hugely taxed but you could own a penthouse flat in kensington worth eleventy squillion quid and be exempt?

    Cos that seems a bit silly.

  5. As an idiot left-wing land taxer, I have to concede Tim’s point @#6 entirely: residential land is critical, the source of the housing bubbles which have gone global when hooked up to gungho banks. This is not even a compromise with the principles of LVT. A fine thing when Tim Worstall is more to the left than this outfit which seems to want not to frighten the Mail/ Express working-class Tories (who’ll be frightened anyway: they start off frightened.)

  6. Why would land under ordinary people’s homes be exempt?
    And what about those without homes – getting off for free?

  7. Thanks Tim; just read it.

    They write “It should be levied on all land except for that which lies under ordinary people

  8. …homes. Very wealthy homeowners should pay, but those with limited incomes could defer payment where required.”

    Like an Income Tax then.

  9. @ sam
    If you were on low income you could own said penthouse and defer payment of LVT until your income rose or you died. Farmers owning green belt land only would be tax-exempt but anyone owning developable land (sheep pasture in Skye or anywhere else outside National Parks or Green Belt) would be liable for tax on the development value of the land. It is possible that the tax on the assumed development value would exceed the agricultural value of the land…
    We cannot say that the value of this land is zilch because all new town developments from Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City to Milton Keynes have created “land value” out of thin air, so thousands of struggling farmers will be bankrupted while the rich ones in the Green Belt whose land has zero development value will pay nothing and the lairds owning grouse moors in Invernessshire or Ross and Cromarty will have to pay a handful of copper.

  10. @ Ironman
    Not like an Income Tax at all. If you have received vast amounts of income and spent it and now cannot pay the tax bill because you’ve hit a bad patch, they’re not going to let you defer it till some later date. (Lauryn Hill is in this fix at the moment)In the case of LVT you can defer it if you’re unemployed until you sell the house then the back LVT is lien on the sale proceeds: more to the point is the Poor Widow, royally ridiculed by Winston Churchill in 1909 ,(though she is dragged into the LVT argument to this day).
    With her, tax collection is deferred until the Inheritance tax settlement (when she carks it in other words).
    I’m afraid Tim is right in this instance: you cannot exempt all the ordinary residential land in the country from LVT e.g. you improve road system to some Godforsaken area; land values go up; if you can tax them you get the cost of the improvements paid for. Not if you have arbitrary exemptions you won’t.

  11. So those of us on low incomes effectively get hit hard eh?
    And while income tax is not deferred it can be negotiated payment rate for arrears. They want £400 they are getting £50 that kind of thing.

  12. “In the case of LVT you can defer it if you’re unemployed until you sell the house ”

    Er, or if you’re in poorly paid employment or fall ill or in negative equity or otherwise in debt or…

    And why should the “poor widow” have her bill deferred? Isn’t she sitting on a big asset that could be liquidated?

    The implications go on and on and you people just don’t think about them. You just bang out your great new ideas and assume you’ve answered all the world’s problems.

    yes LVT is a good idea, jst not in the hands of people who thinks banks create money out of thin air!

  13. Its quite simple – under income taxation your labour belongs to the State (or rather a proportion of it, the proportion to be decided by people like RM). Under LVT your property belongs to the State and you may live there as long as you pay the rent (which is what LVT effectively is), the rent again to be decided by people like RM. Don’t pay the rent, get chucked out by the Landlord.

    Personally I find the former less of an imposition as one can at least stop working so hard if income taxes rise. Its considerably harder (and more inconvenient) to move house every time the LVT goes up.

    And the idea that you can no longer own property free and clear of State interference for me is the worst part of it of all.

  14. @ Ironman
    Have you read the CLASS proposal?
    You are not taxed on the *actual* value for which you could actually sell the land but the Development value if someone built houses factories or shops on the land. So the poor widow with an acre of garden where her husband used to grow carrots and peas and beans and strawberries and raspberries and gooseberries and blackberries and loganberries and blackcurrants and rhubarb (my father used to grow all those and a wonderful variety of flowers in one-third of an acre) is clobbered with a LVT on

  15. “The value of land for taxation purposes should be based upon its optimum permitted use, so farmers would not be badly hit, while landowners sitting on developable land could build it out or cough up.”

    So all land will be taxed as if it was fully developed with tower blocks on it then? Because all land can be developed. The only thing holding it back is planning.

    But if you go with their attempt at defining it, will landowners sit on their land and not apply for planning until the last minute before developing to avoid LVT? I mean, it’s not developable until it has planning.

  16. @ SBML
    It is developable UNLESS it is in the Green Belt or a National Park (or the local authority has placed some specific restriction on it).
    So every houseowner with a garden would be liable for the tax on the notional added value of house extensions – in some cases there is space for a small house to be built at the end of the garden – not that I should wish to live in such but an honest Roma coming here from persecution in eastern Europe might.

  17. # 17 continued (Tim- how much would it cost you to use a server with decent software?
    with a LVT on GBP 1 million, which she cannot pay out of a state pension of GBP 107 a week – or GBP 150 a week including pension credit and saving credit and Uncle Tom Cobbley.
    All this is so that Justine Thornton, barrister, belatedly married to a millionaire politician and deemed by Ed to be part of the “squeezed middle, does not lose her Child Benefit.

  18. John77

    “Have you read the CLASS proposal?”

    As much as I could stomach. The point of Tim’s post was the CLASS switch in an instant from an LVT to an income based tax, which in effect is what their exception for “ordinary” people means. Thus, again as Tim notes, the whole bloody point is undermined.

    And yes, that poor widow can indeed liquidate her asset!

  19. @ Lotus 51
    We are not discussing the classic LVT which is based on the actual (realisable) value of ALL land (to which kaalvtn’s comments relate as a parody of the ill-founded criticisms, while pretending the well-founded ones do not exist) but the vote-grabbing variant proposed by CLASS. See my previous comments. If you cannot be bothered to read the thread, don’t post on it

  20. @ Ironman
    Sure: in theory she can liquidate it but if the selling price is less than the tax she is charged on the theoretical development value of the garden she is still penniless.

  21. @ Ironman
    “The point of Tim’s post was the CLASS switch in an instant from an LVT to an income based tax, which in effect is what their exception for “ordinary” people means. ”
    The exception is only for the land under the houses of “ordinary people” not their gardens.
    The idea is an additional tax on anyone who can be stigmatised by the “liberal media” – but I bet someone will find a loophole so that it doesn’t apply to all the millionaires in the Shadow Cabinet or Bob Crowe’s council house

  22. Lots of ‘ordinary’ 2 and 3 bedroom terraced houses in the town I live in, valued at non-ordinary prices between 350-500k.

  23. Lotus 51, where am I indeed?

    This thread is the usual mix of “killer arguments” all of which have been debunked and some spirited rebuttals by the usual suspects.

    Sam doesn’t appear to know that the rental value of a typical UK farm is about

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *