I’m just been learning about Basic Income Guaranteed (BIG) over the past year, and efforts in…
Kevin J. Bavaro
11

Kevin- I accept that politically LVT is a big hill to climb, partly because it is very new to most people, but when you look at the numbers I’ve set out (albeit for the UK) you find that the vast majority of people (including homeowners) would see their disposable incomes rise.

The average owner-occupier household would be £4,400 better off per year, but even home owning households of property worth a lot more than the average would still be slightly better off. With Basic Income at around £10,000 per household and Land Value Tax equivalent to 3% of the value of residential property, only those 2 adult households in homes worth more than £330,000 (average is c£190k) would have a net liability — for everyone else, the Basic Income would cancel out or be more than the LVT.

I can’t find accurate figures on this, but my best guesstimate is that only around 10% of homeowners would in fact have to pay anything.

The 37% of households in the UK who rent would do even better financially.

Once people understand this, it makes it a much easier sell.

Clearly more work needs to be done on the numbers, but we can assert this comfortable in broad terms given what we already know

P.S. I accept that large land/property owners and landlords will be worse off so would have to find another business model, or another business altogether, but that is another part of the appeal of LVT — It will push investment and activity back towards the productive economy and away from speculating on, and hoarding, land which makes us all poorer

Like what you read? Give Martin Farley a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.