I thought that ruinously expensive houses were supposed to be a Good Thing. But never mind. Apparently not.
There must be a tax on the productive value of land per acre, other than that occupied by the homes of the less well off.
Perhaps, that would make possible the abolition of stamp duty. In any event, it would establish and enforce the principle that no one should own land other than in order to make use of it.
This was proposed by the underrated Andy Burnham when he was a candidate for Leader of the Labour Party. Do not take your eye off that man.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Burnham, would be land reformer, Gove schools hammer, practising Catholic, Northerner, very civilised degree in English, ideal successor to Miliband, scene-setter for a next Leader whose life was changed by reading the eagerly anticipated Confessions of an Old Labour High Tory by David Lindsay.
ReplyDeleteAll sorts of our causes are rising again, from traditional Labour wariness of the EU, to the atavistic, aboriginal Tory doubts about capitalism, American hegemony, Israeli influence, and wars. Plus this.
ReplyDeleteI wish you were well enough to visit political/literary London and see just how keenly some people across the usual spectrum are waiting for your next book. It's gone to the publisher, we understand. Is this proposal in it?
ReplyDeleteAmong a great deal else, yes. Alas, on my hospital bed, I realised that I had missed out restoring the networks of local police stations and police houses as part of the restoration of liberty (although I suppose that that is implicit in the restoration of foot patrols), and also repealing the provision for no win, no fee litigation. I had also omitted the de facto decriminalisation of cannabis from the charge sheet against the Cabinet in which Margaret Thatcher sat from start to finish without protest. Ho, hum.
ReplyDeleteWith any luck, it will be like the last one. Everyone who can understand a word of it will quietly laud it among ourselves, but all your embittered contemporaries will take to the Internet to wail and stamp their feet because they have been confronted with the fact that they are nowhere near as clever as they thought they were and about one percent as clever as you. We among your contemporaries who are anything but embittered always knew about them, as we always knew about you.
ReplyDeleteWeeelll ... the next one is intended for a larger readership, that is why I am publishing it the old-fashioned way.
ReplyDeleteBut the first one has still, as you say, managed to reach not only the people who can understand it, and whom it would have reached by any means, but also the people who are none too pleased to be confronted with the fact that they cannot understand it, that there is something that they cannot understand.
Anyway, on topic, please.
"There must be a tax on the productive value of land per acre, other than that occupied by the homes of the less well off."
ReplyDeleteOk, a few questions on this:
1. A home changes ownership midway through a year and a less well family moves in. Do you give a rebate to the previous owners, the new owners, or neither?
2. Do you measure the productive value of the land with reference to the overall economy, the local economy, or neither? How would you value home ownership on that land?
3. How often do you anticipate revaluing land value? What do you do when it changes - do you apply newer penalties to owners, give rebates, or neither?
4. How will you define less well off? Is this contingent on national economy or local economy? If the latter, how will you define areas within which a family can be less well off?
5. How will you take into consideration that land cannot in all practicality be worth a set sum if you can't reasonably convert it? ie residential land would be worth more if it was heavy commercial, but planning law won't allow commercial land in that area. Do you value it as residential or as heavy commercial?
6. How do you deal with the fact that the value of some land is dependent on neighboring factors - ie a residential land could convert to commercial but only if say 100 other acres of land also convert. Do you value each individual acre as commercial or only when all 100 convert?
Andy Burnham couldn't answer any of these questions. You always say you want a debate on the issues - come on then, tell us.
I know what I'd do, but more worked out answers are available at or from htpp://www.labourland.org and http://www.thislandisourland.org.uk.
ReplyDelete