--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
, John David Kromkowski wrote:
> KJ: "Most of the land value is in residental properties."
> JDK: This is a bit confounding. Because that it includes landlords and idle speculators who are even leasing the properties.
Yes, and even VACANT residential land.
> In Baltimore, 58% of the land value is controlled by the top 10% (all corps) of the land owners.
Which wouldn't get UIEs.
> The bottom 10% (of those who even own land at all) control less than 1% of the total land value.
So their UIEs would surely cover their LVT.
> In Maryland, the per capita land value is like 80K, so a "fair share" would
> be about 320K (maybe less if Walt doesn't kids are entitled to a per capita
> share - whatever -). Individuals are not using nearly that much land value.
Yes, but the suggested UIE of half the median land value used by human persons would be more like $20K, maybe even less, so that only works out to at most $80K for a famly of four. Not too generous.
> In the US, I would definitely dispute the theory that most of the land value is residential.
If you are talking about location value only, most is definitely residential. If you want to include minerals, broadcast spectrum, water, etc., then no.
> The beef is about entities (corps or individuals) using more than the fair share of land without paying the LVT.
> Taxing land stops the cycle of boom and bust, but does it actually make
> the economy better (especially if it is thrown in the sea - sorry Harry).
Probably not if it is thrown in the sea -- or spent on bombing foreign countries -- but otherwise, yes.
-- Roy Langston