"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...
On 31/08/2012 22:05, News wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually
considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much
lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and
cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is
a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders
already own compared with brown field sites which they don't.

Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of
brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance
and remediation

The best way is to slap land valuation taxation on all land. The
landowners soon get it profitable. And no public expense to do so.

But will the tax on my garden be higher than my present council tax?

Land Valuation Taxation (LVT) is on the VALUE of the land, all the land not
just the garden. It does not tax the capital, the building. In its purest
form there will be no Income, Sales, Inheritance tax or tax in interest.
Calculations have been done that show a man on £40K per ann as an
owner/occupier will be approx, £6.5 to £7K per ann overall. As time goes on
the revenue HMG needs will be less as more enterprise is encouraged and
economic parasites eliminated. So, the £7K saved will increase. The Welfare
state will diminish as people gain control of their lives pushing HMG into
the background. Speculation on land is near eliminated - so no land fueled
boom and busts - as the 1929 & 2008 world-wide crashes were.

http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/

LVT

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:12:12 on Fri, 31 Aug
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

England and France also share a border.

Can't see both sides building right up to the edge of it though.

Didn't someone build a rail tunnel up to the border, from both sides?


Actually IIRC the tunnel took the border with it.

"Where would the border be?"
"What's wrong with where it is at the moment?"
"The three mile limit... Who would control the bit in the middle?"

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

In message , at 19:39:41 on Sat, 1 Sep
2012, Tim Roll-Pickering remarked:
England and France also share a border.

Can't see both sides building right up to the edge of it though.

Didn't someone build a rail tunnel up to the border, from both sides?

Actually IIRC the tunnel took the border with it.

"Where would the border be?"
"What's wrong with where it is at the moment?"
"The three mile limit... Who would control the bit in the middle?"

In that case, unless the remark was made about the Channel Tunnel, I'm
not sure how France and England can share a border given the three mile
limit.
--
Roland Perry

In that case, unless the remark was made about the Channel Tunnel, I'm not
sure how France and England can share a border given the three mile limit.


Due to the rise in off-shore resources, that's been changed?

The original three miles was based on the range of cannon shot however
Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters
extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline
(usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. An exclusive
economic zone extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a
maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from the territorial sea baseline,
thus it includes the contiguous zone.

Thanks to Wiki.


--
Cheers.

Roger Traviss


Photos of the late HO scale GER: -

http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

On 01/09/2012 10:41, News wrote:

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...
On 31/08/2012 22:05, News wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually
considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much
lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and
cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is
a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders
already own compared with brown field sites which they don't.

Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of
brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance
and remediation

The best way is to slap land valuation taxation on all land. The
landowners soon get it profitable. And no public expense to do so.

But will the tax on my garden be higher than my present council tax?

Land Valuation Taxation (LVT) is on the VALUE of the land, all the land
not just the garden. It does not tax the capital, the building. In its
purest form there will be no Income, Sales, Inheritance tax or tax in
interest. Calculations have been done that show a man on £40K per ann as
an owner/occupier will be approx, £6.5 to £7K per ann overall. As time
goes on the revenue HMG needs will be less as more enterprise is
encouraged and economic parasites eliminated. So, the £7K saved will
increase. The Welfare state will diminish as people gain control of
their lives pushing HMG into the background. Speculation on land is
near eliminated - so no land fueled boom and busts - as the 1929 & 2008
world-wide crashes were.

http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/

LVT

I live on a pension of about £10k. I am not complaining, but I would
like an answer to my question.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 01/09/2012 09:06, Optimist wrote:
To get to the other side of the Chilterns?

I no longer live in the Southeast, but I will try to give an answer if
you make it clear what you are asking.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 07:56:37 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
There's something called google maps - try using it. If you do you'll see
that as I said , aprt from a few fields watford is contiguous with central
london by way of south oxhey , hatch end and harrow.

B2003


The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End.

And what?

B2003

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 07:52:31 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
Oh not this fatuous old argument again. There were plenty of british
workmen before the flood gates were opened but guess what - a lot of them
had families to pay for and didn't fancy living 6 to a flat. If you're some
20 something single male sharing rent with a lot of mates of course you
can undercut the indigenous competition.

B2003

So the state can pay for their families. I would have thought that
someone of your political inclination would be against that. The three

Nice tangent to head off on. If the state has to pay for their families
thats because the state caused this mess in the first place.

Polish and one Russian family on my suburban street seem to be able to
live on the husbands' wages.

Are they blue collar? Meanwhile I had 4 romanian guys living next door a while
back running a gardening busines, all sharing the rent and charging low prices
because they were single and didn't have many expenses.

B2003

On 03/09/2012 09:48, d wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 07:56:37 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
There's something called google maps - try using it. If you do you'll see
that as I said , aprt from a few fields watford is contiguous with central
london by way of south oxhey , hatch end and harrow.

B2003


The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End.

And what?

B2003


Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event of
future legislation?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 07:49:41 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End.

And what?

B2003


Watford is not in Greater London and will only become so in the event of
future legislation?

You're missing the point. As a shorthand way of stating what is and isn't
in london I said any built up area within the M25. If some of those places
arn't technically within what is legally london who cares. Croydon probably
isn't either but I don't think many would deny that these days its simply a
south london suburb rather than a seperate town , the same as Barnet.

B2003