FAQ About Location Value Covenants

< Back to all questions

one year ago | robinsmith

What about taxes lost from high earners or those who do not enter into an LVC. What about their tax revenue forgone?

None is lost. High earners are now paying a rent for benefits received, a win for the community. Those who decide against an LVC would still pay income tax at greater cost to their personal economy. That's their free choice, so be it.

Other Questions About Location Value Covenants

What is the primary purpose of LVC’s?
What is your policy idea called?
Where did the idea come from?
What was the biggest roadblock you found to LVT?
LVT supporters claim landowners acquired these assets illegally or against 'natural law' and see they should be fully recovered without question. How do you respond to this?
If a confiscation policy such as LVT is bound to fail, how else can the economic rents be collected?
What exactly are you proposing with LVC's then?
Who would want to do it at inception?
How does this deal with the financial economy?
What is your roadmap for abolishing all the big taxes on the production and exchange in the real economy?
What about taxes lost from high earners or those who do not enter into an LVC. What about their tax revenue forgone?
What about the big land owning estates?
What about bank assets, balance sheets, cash flow and financing it all?
How could we avoid the highly taxed and also tenants joining the scheme leaving the government with a depleted revenue from both rents and income tax?
This sounds like a scheme which will be very slow to adopt. The longer it takes, the more likely it is to be undermined surely?
Is the increasing price of locations the only economic rent?
Where can I find more information in detail?
See all questions about Location Value Covenants