Another comment. Those who us who call a CD a CD, will say that the total government budget in this simple example is 130, and that 65 is spent for distributing dividends, but those who call it exemptions, will say that the total government budget is 65, post exemptions. It doesn't matter. MW's proposals are costed according to the total UK budget under an LVT-regime, and he describes the CD as a sum per week, different for adults, pensioners and children. The figures I give down below are ofcourse entirely made up, and doesn't reflect the actual distribution of land values. There is always a certain portion of land value (usually around 20% of built land it seems is common), which is business-owned, and that would pay their tax-liability in full, which will slightly increase the amount of people into net-non-taxpayer status. But all land is still assessed and charged, and any exemption or CD has to be apportioned as a function of the total land rents and what level of government expenditure there is. Whether people pay this with their earned income or their share of LVT-revenue, the land will still be subject to a liability, one that no sensible bank would mortgage as a higher land value even if several people is able to band together and be non-net-taxpayers. The point of all this is also a matter of taste. As Roy says, there is an argument that people have a right to land, to which I tend to agree with, and we can all bicker about who gets what. Some say that everyone should have a basic income for a range of reasons. But your blanket rejection of anything Roy says is nonsensical.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> I'll give you a simple example. There are five persons, with five different tax liabilities, a:10, b:20, c:20, d:30 e:50. Total assessed tax liability is 130. They decide that they want to apportion 50% of the budget to a grant for each person. That wold be a per capita grant of 13 per person.
> The net payment to government is as following:
> Net revenue to government is 65, 50 % of the assessed tax liability. Then you can tweak the numbers. Maybe person A is really a household with 2 people, and person D is a household with 2 adults and two children, and you decide that the grant per kid is half that of adults. Then you take 65 and divide it by 8, which means every adult get a grant of 8 (rounded), and each child get 4 (rounded). Then you get the following net payment to government:
> A: -6
> B: +12
> C: +12
> D: +6
> E: +42
> Net revenue for government is 65(rounded)
> Maybe you want to go the other way, and purposefully make the grant half of the median assessment, in this case 10, and everyone, including children gets one. Well that would make the outlay 100 out of 130, which is clearly not affordable if there are important tasks to be done that requires a higher budget than 30. But that's all political and a matter of doing the figures.
> The point of this is: negative tax transfers is entirely possible. What level to set the grant (or "exemption") if you like, is all up to budget considerations and political flavour. Get it?