Friday, 12 July 2019

AFTER 100 YEARS, STILL NO IMPLEMENTATION OF L V T.
WAS IT ALL THE FAULT OF HENRY GEORGE?

Henry George was not an academic, or a qualified economist. He was a hugely successful campaigner. But was he toosuccessful?
That is what Michael Hudson, one of my great heroes railing against the false theories of mainstream economics (you know, the ones who ‘didn’t see it — the Great Financial Crash of 2008 — coming). And yet he blames Henry George for being too narrowly focussed, too unwilling to collaborate with other reformers, for the failure to implement LVT.
Read Hudson’s paper — it is a very easy read — and make your own mind up. Was Henry George and the well-funded Georgists who followed him the reason why LVT is always rejected and his followers treated as fanatics?

Henry George's Political Critics Michael HudsonFirst published: 26 February 2008
To access the paper FOR FREE click on:


American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 

Thursday, 11 July 2019

LAND FOR THE MANY (not the few)

THE LATEST BRAVE ATTEMPT BY THE LABOUR PARTY

TO CURB THE PARASITE (rentier) ECONOMY


https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/12081_19-Land-for-the-Many.pdf
  

Only ref to LVT is to replace business rates (UBR). Otherwise avoids the topic altogether. Is this an example of shrewd political calculation? Dodge the smearing headlines in the Daily Mail (inspired by Conservative Central Office of course!) that “Corbyn is going to inflict the dreaded ‘Garden Tax’”. So stupid are the Mail hacks, that they think the tax will be levied on a per square foot basis depending on garden size! 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7145233/Essex-resort-boasts-biggest-gardens-Britain.html

Poor George! 

He discovers that some of his fellow journalists of our free press say nasty false things!

There’s been a recent Report prepared for the Labour Party called Land for the Many, not the Few.  It is very good, makes a serious and sensible attempt, in part, to see how government could take back the value in land under houses and ensure that homes for the many become cheap enough for the many to buy (or rent). 

I’ll look at some of the ideas in this report in future postings, but here I’m looking at the horrible, but totally predictable way the right-wing press reacted to it. Amusingly, or maybe , sadly George Monbiot, one of the authors of the Report just did not see the ferocity and mendacity of the attacks his Report was about to be subject to.
Read on… 

Friday, 22 March 2019

THREE GREAT IDEAS FROM A REAL EXPERT IN THE HOUSING

Why can’t you afford a home?Is the provocative title of new book by a genuine expert Josh Ryan-Collins. 

He really does understand that building more houses is not the answer. It is the Land market and the way Banks can create unlimited credit for mortgages that drive up prices, and make housing an ‘investment’ good.

Fine as far as it goes! But does he suggest a remedy?

Yes indeed, not ONE fix, but three of them
Control the Banks
Tax Land Values
Public Ownership of Land
Let’s look more closely at how far Josh’s ideas will Fix the Housing Market (hint: sadly not very)

Tuesday, 29 January 2019

SOMEOME ELSE WHO UNDERSTAND FIXING LAND PRICES IS THE SOLUTION TO THE HOUSING CRISIS

 ANOTHER  (fairly) BRILLIANT IDEA TO CAPTURE LANDVALUES 

LAND IS NOW HALF OF OUR WEALTH!

Andrew Parvin points out the ‘irony’ of Affordable Housing, when what’s really driving up prices is the land cost. The graph above shows what’s happened.  So far so brilliant, but his solution is for Local Authorities (Councils) to acquire land, or use their own land and the LEASE it for housing at much reduced ‘affordable’ cost.

The catch is that only social housing applicants would qualify, and they would be selected, somehow, perhaps by a points system, and be hedged in by strict regulations when letting or selling the resultant house.

What a shame he couldn’t go the whole hog and say we need to get rid of this category of social/affordable housing altogether!  We know how, don’t we? Full value LVT — to be fair Parvin does give a mention for Henry George.

Wednesday, 28 November 2018

THE POLITICS OF TAX CHANGES —an excellent Guide (with 2 examples) from Ireland

Anyone interested in changing the tax regime, and this must include all Land Value Taxers, should read this recently published Report
    Jim O’Leary September 2018 How (Not) To Do Public Policy: Water Charges and Local          Property Tax Galway, NUI; Whitaker Institute for Innovation & Societal Change
It’s available as a free download from:
It’s about Ireland but the principles are universal. Any new tax or major change has to be acceptable to the politicians and the voters who vote for them. It also has to be administratively practical, and it helps it experienced Civil Servants design its implementation .
      So far, so obvious you might say! O’Leary uses the example of a Property Tax which was initiated without too much bother, and a system of water charging which is a complete shambles.
     I urge all land-taxers to read this paper (OK skip the sorry details of the water charging fiasco!) It is vital reading if you are serious about seeing LVT implemented in any form in our lifetimes.

Tuesday, 27 November 2018

GET REAL IF YOU EXPECT LVT TO HAPPEN A salutary tale from Ireland

There could never have been a better time than 2012 in Ireland for the introduction of LVT or Site Value Tax as they prefer to call it. Back in 1978 there had been the hurried decision to abolish domestic rates following a rash promise at an election (!). It was soon realized that this was a mistake and a form of property tax needed to be re-introduced. The result of the 2007 Irish General Election was a coalition, with the Green Party as one of the junior partners. 
All agreed that there should be a property tax, but it was the Greens who specifically advocated Site Value Taxation (SVT). By 2009 a Commission on Tax had reported which saw merit in SVT, but opted for Property Market Value as the basis for the new tax. 
In early 2010 a new coalition government made its proposal in its Renewed Programme for Government. This time, under pressure from all parties, SVT was the preferred option. 
Then in late 2010 the Great Financial Crash exploded on Ireland. The economy shrank by 8%, revenue from property taxes, mostly Stamp Duty on sales, collapsed. Government finances looked dire. 
This is the classic Shock Doctrine territory made famous by Naomi Klein. This is when, in the wake of the crash, the neo-cons move in to pick over the stricken economy, advising governments to privatise utilities, reduce taxes on the rich, crush the power of the trade unions. 
When, in post-crash Ireland a high powered outside group (which became known as The Troika) started issuing edicts, they included the ill-fated introduction of water charging through a privatized company. More promising was the Troika’s requirement to introduce a property tax.
Conditions in 2011 then, could not have been more promising for SVT/LVT. There was a crisis, and more tax revenue was desperately needed. The two previous coalition governments had plumped for a property tax based on SVT. A big bad external group (The Troika) was pressing the government to introduce some form of property tax, so could be blamed if anything went wrong. So what happened next?
In July 2013 the ‘Local Property Tax’ was introduced at 0.18% of the property’s value, payable to central government. But what had happened to the coalition government’s enthusiasm for SVT.  The design practicalities of the new tax were handed to an ad-hoc Inter-Departmental Group of Civil Servants. They produced a Report Design of a local property taxfor the Irish Government 2012. They were well aware of the political impetus behind SVT, yet in their wisdom and experience they produced the following rebuttal of SVT. I reproduce here in full, because I think every land-taxed and Georgist should know what hurdles must be overcome before SVT/LVT is implemented. 
If we cannot overcome these objections at such a propitious time then the project that we hold dear — Land Value Taxation — is a Dead Duck.

So why did Ireland flunk the introduction of LVT/SVT and bring in a property-value(price)-based tax instead? Read on..