Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (286)

Spotted by Mitesh in The New Statesman:

The value of your property is not necessarily any indication of your wealth.(1)

OK properties in the Southern part of the UK attract higher values than those elsewhere, but the inhabitants have had to work much harder.(2)

The present [council] tax is very discriminatory against those in the South.(3) Many of us already pay twice as much council tax as similar properties in other areas. Many of us survive on similar salaries or incomes - especially those working in he public sector or pensioners.(4)

The average council tax is not much more than £1,000. A similar property, across the country can fall into any band from A to H the further South you travel the higher the band.(5)

Equally unfair is the suggestion of LVT. Most householders in the Southern half of the country would not be able to afford LVT.(6) Maybe thats the answer, we all move northward for cheaper living.(7) We all use the same services, so why not the same council tax?(8)

1) Correct. The rental value of land is not net wealth, it is a measure of the flow of wealth from non-landowners to landowners. Apart from this wealthfare, most landowners are not wealthy at all.

2) Lie. The main influence on house prices is the local average wage for doing run-of-the-mill jobs. People in "the south" do not work harder, they just get paid more, that's all.

3) Outright lie. If Council Tax were discriminatory against houses in the South, then they'd be cheaper than houses up North. Which they clearly aren't.

4) True. So what? Public sector salaries and old age pensions is just more wealthfare.

5) Yes, because Council Tax is a dim and distant poor second cousin of LVT.

6) What a load of f-ing bollocks. Rental values, and hence LVT, is dicated entirely by what people in any area are willing and able to pay. The article suggests replacing Council Tax bands with an annual 0.6% charge on current selling prices to raise the same amount of money. (which is less than what they pay in Northern Ireland, FFS).

7) Would "most" or "all" people move? Make up your mind, love. If she were correct (which she isn't), can she explain to me why millions of people and thousands of businesses are prepared to pay the higher rents to be located in or near London? Why don't they all move up North..? It's precisely because they can earn more money for the same effort, and that extra income goes straight into rents.

8) The services are our "citizen's dividend", that's how they spend tax money, not how they raise it. Or would she like old age pensions to be funded by a Poll Tax on, er, old age pensioners? Doesn't make sense, does it?

And she's lying anyway, does anybody in their right mind think that somebody living in a large plot in a nice area gets the same services, i.e. benefits from society, as somebody on a small plot in a crap area? of course not, and those extra benefits are what make up the rental value. And if she does think that they get the same benefits from society, she won't mind moving, will she?