--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> On a basic level, does n't the fact that the proposal in question is to exempt people from paying half the median lVT liability, play merry hell with the efficiency of the tax mechanism you have rashly espoused?
> (Say by comparison with the Mill scheme which would simply scoop all land price rises after the Budget Day deadline.)
LVT+UIE+RPE is far MORE efficient than the Mill proposal from Day One.
> Does n't exempting this much occasion in you the slightest twinge of doubt?
Please refer back to the post where I described the mathematics of medians for you. Under any kind of plausible distribution of land use, the total amount of rent exempted by the UIE can be expected to be no more than about 20% of total land rent.
> And if two people share they get exempted the whole median viz the mid range land price from tax?
No, NOT the mid-range LAND price, the median land value used PER PERSON. How many times do I have to explain this to you? The median is calculated by dividing the land value used by each household by the number of people in that household. So a couple sharing the median amount of land used per person and thus paying no LVT would be using the median amount used by the WHOLE POPULATION: the amounts used by singles, the amounts used by couples DIVIDED BY TWO, the amounts used by small families DIVIDED BY THREE OR FOUR, and the amounts used by large families DIVIDED BY FIVE OR MORE.
> So you prate on about this tax being as efficient as the Mill method but, at the mid point of the curve of residential land-price distribution, most households are n't paying any at all.
No; that is false, absurd, and all but statistically impossible. You clearly have not understood how medians work, and how any widespread attempt to live without paying any LVT just reduces the median, making HALF the median that much less again. Perhaps your unfortunate experience with grade-school algebra is to blame for this mathematical blind spot.
> Please explain how this is as efficient as the Mill tax.
What you describe can't happen, so it doesn't matter how inefficient it would be.
> Or efficient in any normal sense of the word?
It is almost as economically efficient as plain vanilla LVT, and has additional efficiencies that plain vanilla LVT lacks due to its salutary effects on poverty (especially child poverty) and equality of opportunity.
> Then of course you have the barmy tax allowances for babes in arms ( not to be seens as dogs in the manger, of course, because they strenuously strive to realise the productive potential of the site they lie about on).
If they aren't using the land, at least they are to that extent also not stopping others from using it.
> Why would n't this 2 children household be able to move onto a site worth double the median value without incurring any LVT?
Because the UIE is calculated based on median land value USED PER PERSON, not median SITE value.
> And 4 children even more? Does n't this strike you as hinting at the possibility of house price inflation (which you have put in inverted commas as if it did n't exist anywhere)?
No. Any widespread attempt to avoid paying LVT by relying on UIEs just reduces the UIE. It is therefore self-correcting (a feature you will find in most of my proposals, btw).
> You don't think taxing people with LVT and then exempting large households is a tad confusing?Or pointless?Or crazy?
No. That is currently done with income tax, and it is widely regarded as prudent, beneficial, and even essential.
> (When you have admitted seeing some merit in the Mill method ,as has Walto and even Langston when he thought he had dreamt up the idea of hold-steady LVT himself.
I have corrected you on this point more than once, yet you continue to make the same "error." There is an enormous difference between taxing all land rents at an increasing rate calculated to hold aggregate land value steady, and taxing only the increase in land rents over the base assessed rent of each site.
> He soon dropped it when he realised what he had blundered into !
I didn't drop it, as I was not the one who had blundered.
> BTW Your involved explanation of where Keynes went wrong incl." Keynesians entirely ignore that most new lending encouragedby credit expansion and/or the lowering of interest will be directed at land values,even a lot of business lending" is exactly the point I was making, though I was backing my assertion with reference to an authoritative text.
No. As usual, the authoritative text you claimed backed your assertion did not do so (they are usually about some other topic entirely).
> As you say, LVT mitigates the ill-effects of FRB credit expansion but Gesell did n't propose credit expansion:he proposed what, in Alberta, was called velocity money ,not that Canadians have any interest in what is distinctive in their own history, apparently.
This sort of thing is not only not a contribution to the discussion, but a disgraceful example of trolling.
> NB If I might be so bold,the nub of your problem is you rely on the notion of my seeing problems" in spite of land rents being taxed"(see below) in the Alphabet Soup system .But they're not going to be taxed.Thanks to the UIE,they're going to be exempted.
It is each PERSON who is exempted, not land rents or land parcels. This makes all the difference in economic effect, but you clearly are not able to comprehend the nature of that difference.
-- Roy Langston