FAQ About Location Value Covenants

< Back to all questions

one year ago | robinsmith

Who would want to do it at inception?

Whoever is better off by doing so. First time buyers, negative equity holders, those on fixed income. To reduce those in most need and who would cost the state the most to mitigate if left unattended. Anyone else who would benefit by taking it up immediately. This is no bail out or benefits scrounging. All sides can be winners

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