1 thought on “Practical solutions to poverty (and inequality) – and why Oxfam refuses to consider them”

  1. Posted 21/02/2015 at 23:37 | Permalink

    ” No doubt such a policy would simply be dismissed as “market fundamentalism”” Lol!

    So, if the government only got out of the way, the price of land in Mayfair would fall to what it cost to produce? ie Zero.

    Land is not the economic equivalent of a can of baked beans, and the rent of property where people want to live will not half, no matter how many houses are built. Due to the scaling effects of agglomeration, in London and the SE they will go up.

    But no matter. In the UK we believe in giving people a choice. So, instead of getting rid of planning regulations which according to Booth is the reason for affordability issues, why don’t we ask freeholders to pay for the value they get from them. ie a land tax.

    That way, NIMBYS will be able to put a cost on whether to block new development or not.

    This is how the market is supposed to work. Funny how a functioning market in housing is in fact the very last thing the IEA appears to want.

Comments are closed.