3 ms·

> They would no more be able to make up their losses through rent increases than I could make up the loss of being charged extra for a loaf of bread at the supe

> They would no more be able to make up their losses through rent increases than I could make up the loss of being charged extra for a loaf of bread at the supermarket by unilaterally raising my wages. One does not drive the other. Do you have research, or an evidence base, for this? > [...] it certainly was being run on behalf of landlords. It certainly was not.

snidane 6y ago
It might have not been directly funded by landlords but it might have been approved for publishing with the same motives as opposed to the other studies which came to opposite conclusions.
- rikroots 6y ago
  It was an Inquiry into the role, functions and funding of Local Government in England. Landlords no doubt had a stake in the Inquiry's conclusions but then so did everybody else living and working in England at the time (not least central, and local, governments).
pydry 6y ago
>Do you have research, or an evidence base, for this? Economics by Paul Samuelson: https://archive.org/details/economics00paul/page/603 https://archive.org/details/economics00paul/page/603 Do you have research that indicates the opposite is likely to be true? I'd be really interested in seeing what that is based upon. >It certainly was not. It's not unusual among for economists to do this subconsciously due to the incentive structure of the profession.
- rikroots 6y ago
  Try here (starting on page 39). Whether it answers your question - I have no idea. It was part of the research commissioned by the Inquiry to inform its work. The Inquiry's terms or reference were to review options for local government funding streams; LVT was one option among many. [Links to PDF] https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/en/archive/20070411120000mp_/http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/docs/051215%20research%20report%20nera.pdf https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/en/archive/20070411120...

snidane 6y ago

It might have not been directly funded by landlords but it might have been approved for publishing with the same motives as opposed to the other studies which came to opposite conclusions.

rikroots 6y ago
It was an Inquiry into the role, functions and funding of Local Government in England. Landlords no doubt had a stake in the Inquiry's conclusions but then so did everybody else living and working in England at the time (not least central, and local, governments).

pydry 6y ago

>Do you have research, or an evidence base, for this? Economics by Paul Samuelson: https://archive.org/details/economics00paul/page/603 https://archive.org/details/economics00paul/page/603 Do you have research that indicates the opposite is likely to be true? I'd be really interested in seeing what that is based upon. >It certainly was not. It's not unusual among for economists to do this subconsciously due to the incentive structure of the profession.

rikroots 6y ago
Try here (starting on page 39). Whether it answers your question - I have no idea. It was part of the research commissioned by the Inquiry to inform its work. The Inquiry's terms or reference were to review options for local government funding streams; LVT was one option among many. [Links to PDF] https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/en/archive/20070411120000mp_/http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/docs/051215%20research%20report%20nera.pdf https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/en/archive/20070411120...