Not very well thought through methinks.
Just one example,---
A Statement under the heading "LVT is it fair?"
""Land Value owes Nothing to Individual Effort""
So for example a farmer/landowner who has put a great deal of effort into improving land,--expensive drainage systems,leveling of land, bringing land into production,rebuilt stonewalls,new fences,hedges,build up the fertility,all these things and many more is going to get hammered by the tax for his efforts.
Others such as speculators who do little useful with the land and let it depreciate will probably pay only a fraction of the tax.
Also possible effects on the appearance of the countryside if land is allowed to go derelict to reduce tax
Same thing could apply to other tracts of land in urban areas.
Half baked Socialist thinking,
Back to the drawing board.
More Nonesense,Income from productive land?
What happens in a year like this when crops have been Lost or Ruined and the business has Lost Money?
How to Pay land taxes then????????????
What use a good accountant then??????????????
The author of these comments had obviously not read the Campaign's document properly before rushing to comment. Having explained that LVT was expressly designed to prevent the problems he was referring to, he came back with the following, It is interesting how he was forced to resort to unusual marginal situations. And the fact that all the improvements he mentions require constant upkeep which is reflected in rental values had not occurred to this genius. Nor that the cost of the improvements is almost doubled by existing taxes which we argue should be abolished.
I have no idea how some stuffed suit can look at a farmers land one bright sunny day(the only time they leave the comforts of their offices)and make any realistic assesment.
Where do they even begin?
What can they know of what the land and surrounding area was like before improvements?
How far back do they go?
5 year,50 year,100 or more?
The whole area could have been worthless bog or rocky hillside before being improved by possibly several generations of the same family.
Do they accept that it would still have been of little value but for the families work or do they stick a price tag on it with virtually no knowledge of its history, and penalise the many years of families hard graft.
Unfortunately in the real world not all the farmers are as well of as Charlie boy.
Some good years,some bad years due to weather,disease,d!ckheads from DEFRA or whatever.
How do they pay tax on years they lose money?
Starve themselves to death maybe?
Are we going back to the days of the evil Sheriff of Nottingham? I hope not.
Maybe not even a half baked idea,---probably only a quarter baked
I have seen enough so called qualifiedvaluers to know that their opinions are as changeable as the weather,likewise appeals.
You fail to address the point I make that they can have little knowledge of what the land was like previously to make a fair valuation on what might have been.
When you say valuations can take account of good years and bad I think you are away with the fairies.
Obviously you dont know or dont care how they are going to pay taxes in a loss year or even a few successive loss years.
Most farmers are farmers,not property investors.
No doubt they could come unstuck also but that is a gamble they take.
Many small farmers next to me are simply maintaining and taking care of the land at their own cost in the hope of better times to come as it is just simply not viable at present.
I am sure they would love your idea.
|< Prev||Next >|