Really, Lev. You should see what Fernand Braudel has to say about the critical role played by the divisibility and tradeability of land in the economic takeoff called the industrial revolution.

And in Australia, Rates are levied on land values, not building values.

Dear Perseus,

Noone is disputing, lest of all Alanna, that land should not be available for use at market values. As a matter of interest, I have read Braudel's analysis on the enclosures; noone is denying that they contained a dynamic element.

As for suggestion that rates are levied on land values not building values, you're simply wrong and a modicum of research will discover this. The method used to determine rateable values varies according to state, territory and council.

It will be interesting to see if you can admit you've made this error.

Regards,

Lev

That Australia raises rates (local government taxes) on land values is clearly questionable. Victoria, for example has only one council,Monash, using the system. The use of that system was destroyed by Jeff Kennetts government. In NSW Neville Wran destroyed the system of rating on land value by freezing the valuations. Nick Griener introduced a split system and there are a heap of "charges"
for as many activities of council as they can dream of. Queensland, where Land Value Rating started about 1896, still has the method of raisinf rates, but here again they tax anything that comes their way. Simply they have diminished the method of rating.

I own property in both NSW and Qld and can confirm with absolute certainty that rates are levied on the basis of land valuations. I also work as a property planning consultant in both states. Indeed, I am involved in negotiations with the NSW government over the purchase of land where the valuation of land for rates purposes plays a central role. I do not know the situation in Victoria but have reason to doubt that Lev actually owns any property or pays any rates. But nice try fellas, I have no need to admit that I am wrong because my statements are capable of substantiation by the facts.

You are quite fortunate to have properties in those councils in NSW and Qld where rates a derived from a partial value of the unimproved site value. However, if you knew your occupation as well as you think you do you would also find that even in the cases I have cited that rates are also partially determined by building value or land use (e.g., residential, farmland, mining and business).

In all cases where rates are more heavily based on unimproved site value rather than property value development is stronger. One of the key recommendations of Ms. Hartzog's proposals is to further encourage the use of unimproved site revenue public financing to encourage economic development. This is what the empirical evidence supports in every instance where it has been tried.

The fact that you are a property consultant and don't know that the way that rates are determined or that they are varied according to councils does not bode well for you claims to be a professional. It is fortunate for you, and unfortunate for your clients, that you are anonymous on this forum.

As I suspected it would seem lack the moral integrity and intellectual humility to admit that you've made a mistake in claiming that council rates are determined on unimproved site values across Australia.

A squirm, a sidestep and a defamatory statement will not enhance your argument, Lev. Rates are levied on property values while other charges are levied as fees for services. You cannot get away with a vague assertion that they fall within the meaning of Rates.

The use for which the land is used is merely to distinguish between categories of rateable land but all the rates are then levied on the valuation. NSW valuations are not frozen, it is the percentage at which rates are levied that is subject to control but rises have been approved.

And it should also be pointed out that Land Taxes are paid in every state and are levied on the valuation OF THE LAND. So Australia, generally, already has what the author was proposing. And as that was the only element of the article that could be classed as of a specific, rather than generalised or vague, nature, then there seems no more need for further comment.