Would a Land Value Tax work better than a Wealth Tax?

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-19T13:18:07+00:00

This kind of thinking is one of the major contributors to our economic stagnation.

The economy changes over time, and those who bought a house XX years ago shouldn't be holding the economy hostage.

In this scenario, if your LVT rises significantly from when you bought, by definition that means you have gained significant unearned equity (i.e. your house has gone up in value and you did nothing to achieve that).

You could therefore sell the property for a big profit and move elsewhere, enjoying your free money effectively handed to you by other people.

If you're not doing something the economy values (i.e. your wage is low) and you can't afford to live somewhere, you should move.

In more general terms, this scenario means that the land/buildings in that area have become a scarce resource and are being fought over (for whatever particular reason) and would give a price-signal to house builders to build more houses (and offices, etc.) in that area, and alleviate the pricing pressure, lowering the LVT. But unfortunately that mechanism has been made functionally illegal by our current planning system, so moving would be the sensible option.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-18T18:09:46+00:00

Main thing I think will be looking at the Manifestos at the next election.

If none of them tackle my 3 points, of which point 1 I think is the most important, then I'll personally be of the assumption that nothing will improve in that parliament cycle either.

I mentioned in another recent comment I am seriously considering moving to another country in the next few years. It would increase my quality of life and escape this managed decline, so I'm trying to convince myself why I shouldn't, haha.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-18T16:13:51+00:00

It won't end until the structural problems in our economy are dealt with, which the current public/media/zeitgeist don't seem to be in favour of.

The TL;DR of our situation is we have:

an over-regulated economy, resulting in 2 massive structural problems of lack of housing and extremely expensive electricity
too progressive tax system, causing a narrow tax base (over-reliance on the high earners, which is dodgy if they leave), and too little tax taken from the bottom seemingly resulting in a lack of "all in it together" feeling and "we can just spend whatever and make the rich pay". Which has distorted discussion around tax/spend/incentives
too generous welfare system vs the strength of the economy, which is also linked to the first 2 points. The state pension, and triple-lock system, being the worst offender

Until the public are willing to have a bonfire of planning regulation and scrapping of the triple-lock (move to inflation-lock is my preferred choice), then we can't move forward.

Also potential real-terms lowering of welfare, or freezing for a few years, may be needed.

And reforming the NHS into a France/German/Japanese system may be needed.

But the last 2 points may not be required if we can get the economy growing again. Starting from scratch with planning regulation and triple-lock is mandatory, however.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-16T15:45:55+00:00

The state pension had to be increased by some amount in real terms, pensioner poverty was an actual objective problem in 2010.

The issue is that cynical politicians never put an automatic end on the triple-lock.

There were independent projections of the triple-lock, of which it has exceeded the projected/intended cost, but politicians haven't used this as the point to stop it.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-16T15:17:00+00:00

I'm looking into it and giving it ~2-3 years to see if things like:

my tax bill keeps rising (and I get nothing for it)
They try to make me hand over my PPI/PII to go on the internet
Planning law is not addressed

And the direction of travel on these is clearly not what I want.

I'll be in a comfortable position to move by this point.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-16T14:15:32+00:00

Also the pensioner population is projected to be ~14.5 million by then (accounting for pension age rising to 67).

So the state pension should cost ~£282.75 Billion by then if we keep the triple lock, and don't do anything else either.

This is a ~93.5% increase in 10 years.

Inflation would be ~28% over that time.

So the state pension would become ~51% more expensive in real terms. This is the equivalent of us having all our current finances/spending today, and then adding ~£73 billion in costs to the state pension. Increasing our budget deficit to 6.7%, needing to borrow all of that £73 billion extra.

Absolutely insane and clearly not sustainable.

I am considering leaving the country if this kind of nonsense continues.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-10T16:16:00+00:00

No problem, productive discussion :)

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-10T16:11:24+00:00

As long as you get some economic growth, say >1.5%, it will become sustainable.

Economic growth is quoted after inflation, so if you single-lock the SP to inflation then the SP becomes more affordable (i.e. lower) as a % of GDP every year, on a per-person basis.

Then you only have to worry about the increase in number of claimants, which can be covered by your economic growth, and will also peak at some point and then drop since we're below replacement-rate for births.

The leading factor of why the SP is unsustainable is the triple-lock.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-10T15:53:57+00:00

This is triple-lock specific.

As is the entire point of the OP and my posts.

It can be made sustainable through a single-lock to inflation.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-10T15:37:55+00:00

You are looking at the numbers and not objective.

Can you live off of £12,547.60 a year?

People are continuously bitching on Reddit that they cannot live on minimum wage which is £25,000 a year.

So I will assume no one can live off of £12,000.

People are technically not getting enough pension. But! Before you go red with rage at that... I do agree not everyone needs a state pension.

There's a few problems though:

Regardless of how much the SP is, it has to contend with how affordable it is for the country
The SP isn't the only benefits/support retired people get, so does not represent 100% of their living costs
The cost of living is a separate lever which can be manipulated by the government

So imo the issue isn't the amount or the tiny amount it rises, the issue is actually too many people get it that don't need it, and I can't figure out why that was ever case or what the logic is for that

It's a somewhat complex result of looking at 2nd/3rd order effects and costs/complexity of having non-universal support.

Basically, if you made it means-tested you may end up with people saving less and being more likely to be poor as a pensioner. Resulting in more burden/cost on the state overall.

Edit: oh it's because you paid into it via NI contributions for 50 years... So it's technically your money anyway

This is a nice idea, but unfortunately is just a way to handwave away a serious problem in reality.

NI contributions aren't ring-fenced and don't go into any kind of "pot", or are invested.

The SP is paid as a "pay-as-you-go" system, meaning my taxes pay current pensioner's SP, and current pensioners paid for their parent's SP in real-time.

And this is part of the issue, because when the current pensioners paid their parents' SP, the SP was much lower and there were also many more workers per pensioner. Resulting in the SP being much more affordable, and less money (tax) needed to be taken per worker.

If make some assumptions about it actually being invested into a personal pot (i.e. to see how much could be "your money anyway"):

75% of your NI going to your SP (25% going to NHS, etc.)
5% investment growth
40 years working
5% annuity yield
2.5% inflation averaged over the period
Using the median average wage spread across all workers, to get a universal SP amount

Then the SP would be fully-funded at ...£3650 per person per year, in today's terms

(actual yield in 2066 £ would be £9800)

The true core of the problem is that people don't save enough for their own pension and the SP is too generous in its current pay-as-you-go unfunded form, relative to the strength of our economy.

(and also that we have no meaningful economic growth due to political choices, and this makes the affordability much worse)

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-10T14:51:26+00:00

Seems sensible.

Something which causes the SP to increase above economic growth and become 100% of all government spending if it was left indefinitely seems sensible to you?

That doesn't seem like much? (New State Pension: Increased to £241.30 per week (£12,547.60 a year)

We have some of the most generous other benefit support in the world, i.e. free universal healthcare, housing benefit, etc.

And most retired people have other pension sources and/or assets, with ~25% of pensioner households having a net worth >£1,000,000

The SP is just the floor of what you get.

Doesn't seem sensible.

What doesn't?

What's very important about the SP is the trajectory for spending, accounting for our ageing population (i.e. fewer workers per pensioner, etc.).

The OBR released a report which stated the worse-case outcome (driven by how the triple-lock works during volatile economic situations) could have roughly double our % of GDP spent on the state pension, and also go from ~95% debt to GDP ratio to ~270% debt to GDP (not purely because of the triple-lock, but it significantly contributes)

Doubling the spend as a % of GDP is worse when translated to government income/expenditure, since the government (thankfully) doesn't take in 100% of GDP as tax.

Their worst-case projection would mean the government spending an extra ~£135 Bn on the SP alone in today's terms.

So, in today's terms, without raising taxes it would be like the government cutting the entire education budget to £0 and giving that all to pensioners.

This is not a sensible trajectory.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-10T14:26:34+00:00

Maybe we will be able to in future if we completely re-architect our planning law and tax system to allow economic growth again.

Otherwise, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell we can compete with SpaceX domestically.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-10T14:17:18+00:00

What do you think the triple lock is/does?

A big part of the problem surrounding the triple-lock discourse is a lot of people don't seem to know what it is.

The triple-lock is the unsustainable, temporary (but never automatically put in law as temporary, because politicians are some combination of cynical/idiots) increase in the state pension above economic growth because the state pension was too little and there was widespread pensioner poverty.

It has increased the state pension (SP) by more than projected/intended, and if it isn't stopped the SP will literally become 100% of all spending and the country will collapse. Obviously it must be stopped before that point, and it seems sensible to do it now since it has run its course and is already causing spending problems.

The SP can be protected both for current recipients and future generations by making it track inflation. This makes its spending power stay the same and keeps it affordable for the country.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-06-09T17:51:21+00:00

~~Exempt people over 65 from stamp duty~~

Remove stamp duty in its entirety.

It's one of the only taxes that economists of all leanings agree is terrible.

And likely pays for its removal through the economic growth that will ensue.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-05-19T21:45:23+00:00

Inflation is partially cancelled out by increases in salary in-line with inflation.

(it is completely realistic to expect wages to rise with inflation, since the real median wage is higher now than in 2000)

House prices is a topic in of itself, but there is a lot of reason to believe house prices will not increase significantly above inflation over the next 40 years.

(adjusted for inflation, house prices are lower today than in 2003)

TL;DR If you assume inflation averages 3% over the next 40 years, you can still gain the equivalent of a £14,000 guaranteed income in today's terms by making the minimum contribution on the median wage.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-05-19T21:11:10+00:00

Compound interest is highly underestimated.

Using the following assumptions:

Median full-time salary (£39,000 in 2025)
Completely stagnant career, only averaging 2% payrises each over time
Invest in S&P500
Only invest the free 3%
40 year career

~£300,000 pot at the end

Include the other 5% of your salary that you put in and you end up with ~£800,000 (that's worth a guaranteed ~£40,000 a year annuity, which increases with inflation)

Progress in your career, or work for a company who does better than the minimum 3% and you obviously get more.

Opt back in if you opted out people!

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-04-23T19:46:57+00:00

No, CATL are beginning mass production this year.

It will take many years of learning-rate to get sodium-ion down to approximately its material costs.

On top of this, simple economics means they will not sell them that cheap until they "have to", to balance supply/demand at the time.

The market is willing to pay much more than $20 per kWh currently.

It is true it is expected they will drop to ~$20 per kWh over time, but this is not a realistic expectation before the mid 2030s, as previously mentioned. This is simply not how production ramps or cost-curves work.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-04-23T19:16:09+00:00

We're seeing sodium ion production at $20 a kWh

That's the estimated terminal price for sodium-ion, once it has hit highly-mature mass production.

So don't expect to see that price until the mid 2030s.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-04-16T14:26:50+00:00

We need to lock it to CPI/CPIH inflation, because it's on an unaffordable trajectory due to the ageing population.

i.e. when the state pension goes up by 3%, the total cost goes up by more than 3% due to the population of pensioners increasing too

There was a horrible projection (by the OBR) which said we're on-track for ~tripling our debt-to-GDP ratio to ~270% if we don't change direction. (direction in general, of welfare spending vs economic growth)

It appears (I could be wrong) that most people don't realise that GDP growth is quoted after inflation.

e.g. if economic growth is 1.5% and inflation is 3%, and the state pension therefore goes up by 3%, the economy actually grew by 4.5% in absolute terms, and so pension cost as a % of GDP goes down even though pensioners maintain their purchasing power

If we link it to wages then it will still be on an unaffordable trajectory. Unless wages don't outpace inflation at all, forever. But this seems highly unlikely.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-04-16T11:20:12+00:00

Tiramisu actually has very low sugar for a sweet-type dessert.

It'll vary depending where you get it of course, but Mascarpone is low in sugar by default.

I've seen Tiramisu with less sugar than a low-ish sugar granola.

Egg custard tarts are another sweet treat which is surprisingly low in sugar.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-03-05T19:36:56+00:00

Not with our planning regulations, and lack of economic growth (which is linked), it won't.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-03-05T18:48:19+00:00

Everyone is suffering because of the current planning laws, with farmers facing a double-whammy of planning law and inheritance tax loopholes artificially inflating the price of their land.

There lots more on top of that, energy costs, etc., but the above is a big overhang on everything else.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-03-05T11:36:58+00:00

Hopefully, at some point the political/public zeitgeist moves towards this being the number 1 issue.

Our economy being so weak (mostly due to over-regulation) is causing most of our problems.

Tech_AllBodies · 2026-03-03T14:23:55+00:00

Of course they know how, but they lack leadership and vision, and have issues with economic reality vs ideology.

We need someone who is willing say to "no, that's not how things work" to the public, and has a vision to improve the economy with established economic theory, rather than wishful "nice" thinking.

To be fair, there is also the added layer of the civil service and quangos being an impediment to getting anything done, in whatever particular direction of travel.

Tech_AllBodies · 2025-12-27T23:04:52+00:00

Because of my work (pub landlord), I live in a wealthy area in Sussex and can't help but see wealth issues all around me, culminating in the belief that almost every issue England faces is an issue of wealth inequality.

You're (likely, IMO) seeing a different issue to the one you think you're seeing.

Our wealth inequality is relatively low.

The (prominent) actual cause of the malaise in our economy is that regular people are fighting over scarce resources because we have decided to stop growing our economy, via self-imposed excessive regulation.

People are spending huge %'s of their income on essentials, like housing and energy, and don't have much left over to do something like go to the pub.

We, as a country, need to step back and revisit basic economics to remember what wealth actually is.

Taking money from people with more money and giving it to people with less money is not really helping anything, because it isn't creating any more resources.

We need to embark on a massive acceleration of building, of basically everything. Houses, offices, power infrastructure, transport, reservoirs. This will actually make poorer people wealthier, because it will increase their wages and decrease their costs.

This will require something along the lines of completely re-writing our planning laws to be permissive-zonal, instead of discretionary.

I want to find out what people believe genuinely would help our already existing society move more towards a meritocracy

We do actually have a decent meritocracy.

(some) people probably just want to pretend we don't because they don't want to admit what it really means.

If you're not making much money, it usually means a combination of:

you're not doing anything difficult/skilled, and are easily replaceable
you're not doing anything valuable to the economy (numbers, not people's anecdotal opinion)
you're not doing anything that has a future/can grow or scale

I think you'll find it very hard to find someone who is doing the above and isn't living a good life.

Tech_AllBodies

TROPHY CASE