Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickyricky | Hacker News Reader

The Guardian may or may not consider it a problem. They don't explicitly state. However, the Scottish government _does_ consider it a problem.

> Last month, a major review conducted by the Scottish Land Commission, a government quango, found that big landowners behaved like monopolies across large areas of rural Scotland and had too much power over land use, economic investment and local communities. The quango recommended radical reform of ownership rules.

I'm an American and am totally divorced from this subject so I don't really understand why your response is so argumentative. It seems to me a description of who owns what land is a mild enough "accusation". The Guardian doesn't make mention of farming or food security. They just says who owns what and quote concerned institutions and individuals.

View on HN

Who would I be arguing with exactly? I think you may be reading tone where none was given.

Are you under the impression people are buying land (land being rural land, not an acre in central London) in the UK for the sake of it? It's not priced in the same league as the USA, it's expensive, if it's not earning a return then it's not happening. So unless you're starting a some sort of windfarm or solar farm, it's generally going to be for farming.

Also, do you realise the opposition party in the UK, Labour e.g. the Guardian, are seriously contemplating pushing a LVT. So they aren't pushing these stories to punish their own. They're pushing these stories to justify what they'll do. And that adds to why would anyone buy any real chunk of land in the UK right now.

As an FYI - a quango is a nonsense lobbying group, it's not independent, anything they come out with can be considered nonsense. Doesn't matter who they work for, it's always doctored stats and the taxpayer getting rinsed.

A land value tax is very common and is universal in the United States. It seems appropriate that those who own the exclusive right to use a parcel of land should pay a tax to the society who enables that exclusive right. If this land is as productive as you say ("if it's not earning a return then it's not happening") then it should be well within their ability to pay the tax. And if its not productive then you'll see land distributed from ineffective landlords to more productive individuals and businesses which can effectively manage the land.

You said it yourself Jeremy Clarkson's farm has only generated $2. If he paid a tax proportionate to his ownership of land he might consider selling that property to someone who could better steward it.

I pay LVT in the United States. I've owned three different plots of land in my life. At no point did this tax prevent me from acquiring land. In fact, it seems like it enabled me to buy this land because in the UK land ownership is significantly lower than in the US.

If land costs _nothing_ to own then it costs nothing to hold as an investment _forever_.

Well done you've just figured out why less than 1% of the population own most of the land.

I'm confused. Do you support LVT? I'm under the impression you don't. If England has no LVT and unequal distribution of land wouldn't that imply that LVT is not a prerequisite for that sort of distribution?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com