´óÏó´«Ã½

The Furrowed Brow

Comments

1. At 09:47 AM on 23 Jul 2007, Ross Williams wrote:

   ´óÏó´«Ã½ RUSSIA.

   Empress dock southampton (dock gate 4).

   A large vessel named the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Russia is in the dock at the moment, how I wish I had a camera, emblazoned on her sides are the letters B B C in the region of 7 or 8 feet high.
   Cannot find her listed on the ABP shipping movements site so she may in hear for more than the day.

   Ross Williams

2. At 12:41 PM on 23 Jul 2007, Jeremy Puckett wrote:

   Rather than continually broadcasting doom and gloom perhaps you could interview someone who does has competence to comment (even though "This reduces the human interest darling") about technical matters. Surely if building on a flood plain the properties and services can be raised above the likely waterlevel either on plinths or piles. Fanning up hype with two alternatives ie to build or not to build is not very positive. There are many engineering solutions to the problem but none are ever offered.
   PS the ´óÏó´«Ã½ might find it helpful to establish in their minds what an engineer is. Using their current criteria in the medical world would result all hospital workers from consultants to porters being called doctors. The organisation's preoccupation with ratings and touchy feely matters renders the news presentation of most technical matters anodine.

3. At 01:17 PM on 23 Jul 2007, Stewart M wrote:

   Re Flooding. I know its supposedly a "once in lifetime" problem but if the Government is going to insist on building on flood plains then they will have to insist of houses being build with flood protective measures. Radio 4 prog recently (cant remember what prog, it may have been PM) had a item on the relative ease of building into new homes protective measures far better than sand bags. I know its no good for current problems but its usually cheaper to build with things in place then have to retro fit.

4. At 01:49 PM on 23 Jul 2007, Anne P. wrote:

   I suspect the solution to the flood plain issue may be financial rather than an engineering one - to wit if the insurance companies refuse to insure new buildings whose occupiers they believe will be making large claims, then builders will be unable to sell them.

5. At 03:17 PM on 23 Jul 2007, wrote:

   Just a thought,

   If we went over to , as proposed in some enlightened quarters, the extra value of "waterfront" properties would ensure more tax revenues to cover flood defenses.

   xx
   ed

6. At 10:32 AM on 24 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

   Ed @ 5, how does Land Value Taxation differ in principle from the Rating System as it used to exist, when the payment required as a local tax on a house was assessed according to the value of that house? They even used to take into account such things as the character of the neighbourhood and the number of bathrooms, bedrooms and lavatories, the size and condition of the garden, and parking. When a chip-shop opened at the bottom of the garden, one could apply for a rate reduction on the grounds of 'loss of amenity', ie one could no longer hang out washing overnight in the garden. This may even have had some influence on unpopular planning decisions: the rating assessors might reduce the council's revenue if the planning office made an area horrible by allowing 42 places selling alcohol until four in the morning to open along one road, and every householder within half-a-mile of that road applied for a rate reduction.

   Serious question. That system was deemed unfair and was very unpopular right up until the suggestion that it should be replaced with a local tax levied on each person rather than on each house, at which point we had rioting against the Poll Tax. Now we have a sort of bastard offspring of the two that neither takes the trouble properly to value the house, nor properly to take account of who lives in it, and everyone is keeping quiet about this system rather than rock the boat, so I am interested in suggested alternatives. I looked at your link, and I am trying to work out how this proposed tax would apply to say a semi in Surbiton, as opposed to a Scots grouse-moor or whatever. Would it not be ruinously expensive for councils now to re-assess the value of every property in the country, properly as opposed to simply on a basis of "how much could this place be sold for?"

7. At 09:31 AM on 25 Jul 2007, Anne P. wrote:

   After posting (4) above I came across a news item to the effect that the insurance industry has said exactly that. The government may try to wimp out by claiming that if the Romans built York on a flood plain it's OK still to do so but while people will live anywhere they find it advantageous to do so, eg fertile flood plains, they will move if the imperative is great enough.

   Mark Steel in the Indie today points out they also built right next to Vesuvius, what he didn't say is that people still live there! They may change their minds if Vesuvius decides to go pop again.

   **first of the day and it's malicious - I think not**

   and again

8. At 10:28 AM on 25 Jul 2007, K. Hopkins wrote:

   Another highly regressive tax is council tax, which the Left Economics Advisory Panel of radical and Labour economists advocates should be abolished and replaced with a land value tax (LVT).

   The poorest 10 per cent of the population currently lose 9.1 per cent of their income to council tax, whereas the wealthiest 10 per cent lose only 1.5 per cent. LVT would replace council tax and national non-domestic rates at a rate of approximately 1 per cent of capital value, with the revenue going to local authorities. Owner and tenant-occupied homes will be entitled to a home allowance, setting a threshold before LVT is charged.

   To pay for necessary public spending increases, additional revenues beyond increased taxes on the rich will be required. There are a number of potential sources of this additional revenue and a good first step would be to close the enormous "tax gap" between tax actually paid and that which should be paid.

   A concerted attack on tax evasion and avoidance is essential. Together, these contribute to the tax gap, which has been estimated at between £97bn and £150bn a year.

   Even a modest dent in these vast sums would bring considerable benefits to Treasury funds.

9. At 01:26 PM on 25 Jul 2007, wrote:

   Here’s something else that worries me.

   Did you see The Observer’s top front page story on 8th July – ‘New health fears over big surge in autism – Experts concerned by ‘dramatic rise’ – Questions over triple jab for children’?

   It turns out the story was packed with silly mistakes, misrepresentations and ignorance. The paper on which the article was based did not suggest a big surge in autism. (Quite apart from the fact that the paper isn’t finished yet, it looks at ‘wider spectrum’ autism, which includes Asperger’s syndrome – and, of course, if you cast your net wider, you will get larger numbers.)

   There were no ‘experts’ who were concerned by the dramatic rise. This claim appears to refer to Prof Baron-Cohen asking if he could show the paper to a colleague down the corridor. (The Prof refers to the Observer article as ‘scaremongering’.)

   Nothing in the paper justified the MMR link.

   Since the original story was published, there has been quite a battle between The Guardian’s Ben Goldacre and The Observer, with no sign that The Observer will back down – they admit to some errors, but basically still seem to think the story is sound.

   I usually associate scaremongering like this with the red-top press – The Daily Mail in particular. Now it seems we can’t trust The Observer either. Like most of the rest of the press, The Observer joined in the hounding of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and other TV companies for their deception of the public in various fraudulent phone-ins and other activities. They’ve had the chance to publish a retraction and an apology. They haven’t taken that chance.

   As I say, this worries me. What shall we do?

   Sid

   ====================================
   This story was available here:
   observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2121521,00.html
   but for some reason it’s no longer available.

   All the details are available here:
   

   Other Denis Campbell stories you may have missed (he wrote the article):
   ‘London told: 'Don't expect a boom from the Olympics'’ (May 13th 2007)
   ‘Thugs dodge World Cup ban’ (June 4th 2006)
   ‘Web pirates who stole the Ashes’ (December 3rd 2006)

   You’d think he was a sports reporter, would you? From The Observer’s site: ‘Denis Campbell is the Observer's sports news reporter. He was formerly a rock star and writer for both Time Out and the NME before joining the Observer. He is a passionate West Ham supporter.’ [25/7/07]
   

10. At 03:49 PM on 25 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Chris (6),

    "how does Land Value Taxation differ in principle from the Rating System as it used to exist, when the payment required as a local tax on a house was assessed according to the value of that house?"

    LVT is assessed on the SITE value, not the value of improvements paid for by the owner out of (presumably) taxed funds.

    Site value does take into account the added value of community provided services, convenience to shops, schools, roads, sewerage, power, etc., all values contributed by the community. And the tax is similar to a rental for such added value and facilities.

    The rating system taxed owner-provided improvement and thereby provided a disincentive to improvement, and caused roofs to be taken off properties and false windows to avoid the window tax, etc.

    Surely you own your improvements (or purchase them from a previous owner), but the quality of the neighbourhood, its facilties, etc., are a 'community-provided' benefits, and legitimately have a claim upon those who enjoy them.

    There is much reading and writing on these matters, and I suggest you try "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George for starters, or simply search 'Georgist'

    On the matter of ownership of land, you could consult John Locke, Henry George, William Ogilvie, or go for starters. or the link provided in my post at #5 above.

    Rates and the present 'council tax' are both based largely upon the 'improved' value of possessions, whereas LVT is based upon 'bare' site value. A BIG difference.

    Also, local taxation should go directly to local government without being determined or routed through central government, with the innumerable layers of accountants involved.

    xx
    ed

    P.S. isn't it weird that owning land in the UK entitles the owner to draw on considerable government funding (agricultural, stewardship, forestry, etc. grants), but brings absolutely NO obligation to contribute to the public purse? Think about it.

11. At 11:22 AM on 27 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Ed @10, thanks for the reading-list! I'm sorry about taking so long to notice this was still a 'live' thread: my post @6 was sent and said 'received' but didn't appear for so long that I thought it had been black-holed.

    I'm not quite sure where the tax you propose would leave people who live in a flat in a sub-divided Victorian house, when they have bought the flat but with a leasehold rather than a part-ownership of the land on which the house was built. Would the tax be levied from the owner of the land from whom they lease it? I expect the answer is in the reading you suggest, but that would be my first caveat: that it is possible to own a dwelling and at the same time own no land at all, and that anyone who has ever tried to fight out an annual bill for non-existent 'repairs' to a property made by a 'management company' working on behalf of a 'holding company' working through a solicitor on behalf of an off-shore company (or some similar chain of people who won't say who they really are) knows how impossible it is to pin down actual ownership of the land if it happens to involve expense rather than income. I can think of at least four cases I have known, involving a collapsing roof that wasn't being mended, a huge bill for repairs to a roof that had not had any work done on it at all, a dispute with a local council about a retaining-wall that had allowed a garden to fall onto a road and the responsibility for repairing it (and that one ran for eleven years before the council apparently gave up and did the work because the road had to be opened again eventually) and a garden that fell into another garden and seemed not to belong to anyone when it came to paying for the damage done!

    I agree entirely that local tax ought to be spent locally by local councils, without the central government dipping its pudgy little paws into the coffers. :-) That said, the local government would also have to administer whatever tax-system is put in place, and in some cases that might cost rather more than it brought in when the ownership of the land itself can be as smoke-screened as I have observed it to be in the cases I have mentioned (in three different towns, London, Reading and Bristol). It's probably more cost-effective to tax the residents directly in some way (them being *there*, living in the place, and comparatively easy to track down), rather than trying to track down and then pin down those who own the leases or the houses/blocks in the cases of flats or rented accommodation, which make up quite a large proportion of all dwellings in the country.

12. At 11:59 AM on 27 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Chris (11),

    Of course, all land must be clearly registered as to ownership if such a system is to work, and that would be a great improvement. Scotland is well on the way to having such a 'cadastral' land register.

    2. Land doesn't move about, and is thus harder to hide than 'movable' property or people. Thus the term "real estate".

    3. Of course, the tax levied upon the owner will be passed on in one way or another to any tenant. The tax on the footprint of an apartment building would obviously be substantial, reflecting it's locational value as well as the capacity for high density occupation (services, etc.).

    In places where LVT is long-established, remote land, farmland, housing land, industrial land, etc., are all categorised and appropriate general taxation rates established.

    In many American counties, non-payment of county or state land taxes for three years renders the property available for purchase by anyone prepared to pay the back taxes. This would work wonders in making land available to Brits (refer to the ). It would also mean that 'hidden' ownerships would disappear pretty quickly.

    As I noted, there is considerable literature, and the idea of LVT has finally begun to be discussed seriously in the UK - Thank God!

    Of course, the very idea of ownership of the Earth is to some degree absurd - we don't own the land; the land owns us.

    On this John Locke and William Ogilvie, both referenced (and linked) in the article linked above, are of interest.

    xx
    ed

13. At 08:45 PM on 27 Jul 2007, wrote:

    There's a rumour going round that Severn Trent could provide water to the households that have been cut off if they were willing to pay Thames Water or Wales - or if those companies were willing to offer it. David Drew MP has raised this. In 1976 there was talk of a ring main - but the break up of the Water Board (which my grandfather worked for all his life and saw as a mistake) has meant that what should be a utility is a commodity. My parents are getting on a bit, they have lived in the African bush and the Oz outback as have I, they lived through the war - but in all that time never have had they had their water cut off - not til now.

14. At 06:54 AM on 28 Jul 2007, wrote:

    OLD BOOTS

    The young Gap-Lamb has returned from tearing up Magaluf and has developed the nearest thing to Spanish Flu. My knee jerk reaction was to pop in to a well known high street name and replenish the medicine cabinet. In my haste I disregarded the leaflet thrust in to my hand, at the door and bumbled hopelessly for a few minutes until I discover that all medication had decamped up flights and flights of stairs to the top floor.

    There was further bumbling until I chanced upon a floorwalker who put me on the right track. I was impressed because the chances of finding anyone not behind a till are pretty remote. On scanning the top floor I noted that either the people of Shrewsbury were suddenly uberhealthy,or they hadn’t found the place, as it was deserted.

    
    Juggling fizzy vitamins and vaporisers,I remarked to a self congratulatory group of male suits gathered at the end of the aisle that they must be barmy expecting poor old sick people to struggle upstairs for their medicine. They gathered as a group of Steers and with dirty looks released a nice female manageress who thanked me for my opinion and spoke eloquently of the struggle for sandwiches and make up downstairs and described how cool and lovely the uplands were for the sick and needy. Also the ‘way the health system was going, they now had plenty of room upstairs for more consulting rooms’. She was harassed, but in there pitching hard. I wondered about her glass ceiling and watched the Steers ushering someone (who was obviously the Big Cheese) into one of consulting room and away from the irritation of customer opinion.

    It left me feeling sad. They’d lost me and my immediate urge to pop into XXXX’s for comfort and relief. A culture of computer models and ring fenced management rewards had got it wrong. Yes, the teeny boppers would probably buy their sandwiches and eyeliner downstairs (if they had any money left over from paying their mortgages). Fifty plus will walk, not upstairs, but somewhere else .What was this shop? XXXX’s the Sandwich Maker? My Baby Boomer money would probably go to the out of town supermarket where it really was convenient or online. Yet another High Street store has lost the plot listening Marketing Managers who could do with a few weekends at a car boot sale.

    I watched the Steers rallying round the Big Cheese and thanked God that this Old Boots savings were not going to hell in this basket.

15. At 10:50 AM on 28 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Aye, the Penny has dropped! (14)
    Brilliant!
    xx
    ed