Jay

@Polymarket It took the Italian stock market 26 years to recover

NEW: Italian stock market soars to a 26-year high.

@Avenger1100 @friesneverdies @FT All tax is evil, but taxing hard work is far more evil than taxing land lol

@friesneverdies @_jaylawrence @FT Evil.

Andy Burnham says land in the UK is ‘undertaxed’ ft.trib.al/64bULpI

Yeah the way they are priced part is usually the part most don’t understand. But this unique opportunity is due to the period of ultra-low interest rates. Gilts that were issued when interest rates were close to 0% pay the majority of the return as capital growth (which is exempt from capital gains tax). Only the coupon is taxed (but because it’s close to 0% there’s very little to tax). Probably best to ask ChatGPT a series of questions if you want to better understand why low coupon gilts pay the return as capital growth, but it’s a smart way to generate lower risk returns for higher rate taxpayers and above

@_jaylawrence @TraderWarner I’m not a expert on gilts but this always seemed quite hard to get your head round. Probably just me.

When people started talking about Holding cash in S&S ISA or Money Market Funds, my first thought was, once Rachel Reeves realises this, she will go after it…. And here we are 😩

@naturalbeautyi7 Very touristy now. Not as bad as Rome or Venice, but still V busy. We left quite quickly and headed to Monopoli nearby

People go to Rome and Venice. Almost nobody goes to Polignano a Mare. Explain.

@TSOH_Investing I don’t know a single person who’s actually learnt a language on Duolingo

Duolingo YoY User Growth

@WiseFern2n5v @FirstSquawk Literal liquid wealth. The stock market is genuinely incredible

@FirstSquawk 'wealth'

Since listing Nvidia 8800x Amazon 6600x Microsoft 4000x Apple 3700x MAG 7 cos created $24 trillion wealth for the 'public'

An LVT would typically apply much lower effective rates on productive farmland. That’s already m the case in places like Denmark and parts of Australia, where agricultural land often receives exemptions. In practice, the largest burdens tend to fall on highly valuable and in-demand land in urban areas, because that’s where the underlying land value is highest

@ChrisNewsR @_jaylawrence @FT From an economic perspective, taxing land can create significant distortions in agricultural production, particularly if it increases fixed costs for farmers. Higher land-related costs may reduce margins, discourage investment, lead to a contraction in domestic agriculture..

Planning restrictions are obviously a huge part of the problem. But that doesn’t mean LVT isn’t viable. Right now, land owners can sit on valuable land for years whilst facing relatively low recurring costs. A LVT changes that incentive structure. If you’re paying an annual tax on high-value land, you’re incentivised to develop it, sell it, or use it productively, rather than simply speculate on appreciation (which is why people in the UK have historically done, including property developers, landlords and overseas investors). How many people in the UK have got rich from property portfolios? There’s a reason why it’s called passive income, because the gains and income aren’t earned lol. You’re correct that planning permission is what creates much of the land value. But that’s arguably the reason why land taxes make sense economically, because a huge amount of the value comes from society, infrastructure and planning decisions, not from simply owning a plot of land or property and everything improving around it. So planning reform and LVT aren’t mutually exclusive. They would need to work together.

You would not increase housing stock by charging LVT because the Local Planning Authority can say no just like they do now. The LPA decides what you can do with the land - not the land owner. Planning is what makes land valuable or not. Look how many planning applications for developments are rejected. Put in an application now to build a house in your garden and the LPA says no. Then what are you going to do?

@ChrisNewsR @FT You’d increase the housing stock by charging a LVT, because it would incentivise the land owner to build on the land or be taxed for doing nothing with it🤦 that’s the point!

All you have described there is a situation that is 100% a supply and demand problem. That is why they can't afford a house. Immigration is too high, planning is too restrictive with land use, not enough houses are built and all those problems will not be solved with an LVT. Less than 1% of all UK homes are owned by foreign investors. Increasing the housing stock tomorrow by 1% would not fix this. LVT would be in addition to income tax. There is no way on earth you are going to replace £330 billion income with a tax on land and not hit people who already pay income tax and raise enough revenue.

Because you’d stop taxing them income tax. And the non-residents would pay a tax on their UK property. And if it’s prime real estate in a city, it has a higher tax. That’s how a LVT would work. Unless you think it’s okay that property can be purchased as an investment, be left empty with no penalty, whilst working people pay income tax AND still can’t afford to buy a home?

@_jaylawrence @FT They are non residents. They pay tax in their own countries. Why should UK citizens be subjected to LVT when you can simply pass legislation that stops non citizens buying residential property. Many countries already do this.

@ChrisNewsR @FT Sure. Overseas investors who own empty London property. We can start there

@_jaylawrence @FT It taxes the wrong people? LVT will tax the same people that paid income tax regardless if they earn any money to pay it as they have to live somewhere. Wealthy people do pay income tax, cgt tax etc. Name a wealthy person who pays zero tax and provide proof.

@rocket_crypt @FT It shouldn’t be. A land value tax should replace income tax

@_jaylawrence @FT But would likely be as well as Labour.

@PolemicTMM @champtgram 😂 wow, Luton looks different these days!

@_jaylawrence @champtgram I'll raise you Bora Bora

I have travelled the entire world and I can tell you all, without a DOUBT… that STN in London is the worst airport on the planet. BAR NONE.

@ChrisNewsR @FT The wealthiest people are not employees. They don’t receive an ‘income’. Income is the easiest form of tax, but it taxes the wrong people.

Strange we already have a system where people who earn more pay a proportionately higher tax with income tax. You want people to pay an equivalent amount as a LVT which would be due if you are not even earning and have no ability to pay it? At least with income tax if you are not earning you don't get sent a tax bill.

@PolemicTMM @champtgram Nothing beats the boarding gates at Koh Samui airport

@champtgram Compare with '3rd world' Cambodia.

You would replace income tax with a land value tax. That way those with more land/assets pay a proportionately higher tax. It would also deflate the value of property and turn it back into a home rather than investment. And for people sitting on unused land, there would be a cost, so they’d be incentivised to build homes to generate a return

I don't understand why taxing land is better. It is a cost you will have to pay no matter your age, income and ability to pay. At no point in your life would you be able to exist without incurring a tax bill. Land values change quickly so you would never know how long you could afford or have the budget for to live in a certain location.

It’s actually quite simple when you think about it: people with bigger or more properties pay more. People with smaller or fewer properties pay less. People who own assets that sit on land pay more. People who hoard land and don’t allow homes to be developed experience a cost for holding that unused land

@_jaylawrence @FT How can you extract a tax from a piece of ground?

Good question. Since land is finite and its value is largely created by society (infrastructure, jobs, amenities, transport links etc), arguably it’s one of the most efficient things to tax instead of labour. Similar to council tax, you’d tax land based on its economic value, which mainly comes from location and access to amenities. This is the classical/Georgist argument for a land value tax. It also discourages land hoarding, and incentivises productive use (e.g. housing, agriculture, or industrial development).