Talk:Land value tax

Needs a deeper explanation

The fundamental base of LVT is reclaiming commonly created wealth to use for common purposes. Nowhere does it say this. . 152.37.76.153 (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite agree.

This is the strong argument in favour. Privatizing this publicly created value is evidently out of order. There are documented arguments stressing this. Guy Standing is one good source.

For the size of this common value I find this very instructive:

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/chapter4-economic-evidence-base-2016.pdf Janosabel (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Objections should be included

They are, in a somewhat biased way (only mentions (twice) rapid implementation). What about gradual phasing in over a 5/10 year period allowing time for economic actors to adjust to the change?

Establishment blockers hide behind silence

Reopen Archived? Talk:Land value tax/Archive 1#Claimed disadvantages

Janosabel (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

price of rent

the price of rent is determined by supply and demand not "what tenants are prepared to pay" whatever that means 112.209.203.48 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

production of food / advocacy for LVT

This article heavily focusses on real-estate and seems a tad biased towards the advantages of LVT. Thee are many sentences that don't seem to be attributed to other sources and therefore seem subjective at best.

It asserts that LVT would not increase rent. I think that contentious since it seems to look at demand in the context of reasonable supply (whereas the current property market, in the UK at least, does not have that reasonable supply and renters cannot just go to another property which is more reasonably priced.

But my main point is that much land is used for agriculture and food production. Here, farmers are generally asset-rich but not generally income rich. If LVT were implemented it seems reasonable to assume that such a cost would be passed on to the consumer. If offset by an attendant fall in other taxes this would seem to work. However, it assumes either a level playing field with other countries, or some sort of tariffs - for any increase in farm-gate prices would surely increase imports with all the attendant issues of food-miles, lower agricultural standards etc.

So - my question (as a Wiki newbie), is should these thoughts be researched and added to this article (give my assertion that it mostly lists only benefits and pro-LVT quotes) under an "arguments for", "arguments against", or should this article restrict itself to purely a description on the facts of LVT (what it is, where it is implemented), and the pros and cons extracted out into a different article? If the latter, then what article would that be? Is there a special place in Wiki?

Thanks CP Snow (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

An example of an asset being removed from land is the daffodil growers in Devon, who use to ship their goods up to London by train. When the track was removed (by the Conservative?) that income was destroyed. Would the increase in tax by the return of land offset the decrease in revenue from the destroyed activity? But Thank God sir, Thank God that land is now covered in weeds! Or maybe children use their bicycles along it on sunny days in August!

143.159.197.225 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate the merits of LVT. Instead, this is the place to figure out how to present LVT in WP. That should be based on what reliable sources have written about the subject, not our personal views. Good luck! Lfstevens (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)