tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post6771705823122946580..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Taxing developmentMartin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-24136010728427147202011-09-02T14:41:45.267+01:002011-09-02T14:41:45.267+01:00"taxation of development merely ensures it do..."taxation of development merely ensures it doesn’t happen"<br /><br />I hope they read this and take note.Evan Owen - Snowdoniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12228099681098123960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-57626301200617521342011-08-24T11:22:33.155+01:002011-08-24T11:22:33.155+01:00I wrote this piece completely ‘off-the-cuff’, and ...I wrote this piece completely ‘off-the-cuff’, and it seems that I muddled up the nomenclature of previous development taxes. Under the 1947 Act it was called a ‘development charge’; then in 1967 we had a ‘betterment levy’. ‘Development land tax’ was introduced in 1976, and the proposed tax which was replaced by CIL was to be called ‘planning gain supplement’.<br /><br />I have come across an article by a senior Tory, written some years ago when they were in opposition, fulminating against the proposed ‘planning gain supplement’ for precisely the same reasons as I have suggested here – taxation of development merely ensures it doesn’t happen. It seems that now they are back in government, the Tories have been persuaded that ‘planning gain supplement’ (or ‘CIL’) is a good idea after all. On the other hand, they suddenly decided this year that we must have more development to save the economy. So maybe they should think again about the desirability of taxing development.Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com