Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14290Re: [LandCafe] Re: LVT to be debated in Parliament?

Expand Messages
  • JDKromkowski
    Nov 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Part of the issue of lack of lvt talk at federal level in the US is our constitution requires that a land tax must be "apportioned among the states".  This is really not that complicated BUT there is no institutional memory of exactly how to do this, because it hasn't been done in like 175 years.  

      The last lvt bill was introduced in 1935 by a PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz.  His bill was a tax on all land valued more than 3000. Never made it out of committee. It is pretty clear from the language that even he didn't understand how to write an apportioned tax bill.  He was already a generation beyond George's son who was in congress and did probably understand how an apportioned land tax would work, but he along with progressives thought the 16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.

      The second is problem is that in the 60s with guys like romney's father and culminating in prop 13  created this whole anti property tax mantra that it hurt the middle class home owner and was not progressive.  And dems bought into this idea and didn't want to be seen as pro any form of property tax.  The history is longer and more nuanced but - in a nutshell.

      Jdk

      Sent from my iPad

      On Nov 11, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

       



      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "derekrss" <derekrss@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm impressed that LVT seems to get occasional serious hearings in the UK. As I've said before, the U.S. is a wasteland.
      > >
      >
      > I think that LVT gets the occasional serious hearing in the UK because we have heavyweight journalists such as Martin Wolf, Philip Inman, Samuel Brittan, and others, supporting it in the mainstream press; we have LVT lobbying groups in the form of the LLC and ALTER, within two of the three main political parties; and one of the minor parties, the Greens, have LVT as part of their manifesto. So a lot of people are doing their best to keep it to the forefront of public debate.
      >
      > But even with all that support, it's still an uphill struggle. All I can say is, "Well done, Caroline Lucas, for devoting your Private Member's Bill slot to it! Thank you".
      >
      > I suppose that if you want similar results in the US, you'll need a similar strategy. My impression with the US effort is that there's a lot of low-level effort aimed at changing things at a local level but not much at the Federal level. Hence the small successes but lack of national debate.
      >
      > But I'm not that familiar with the US situation, so I could be totally out to lunch on that. What do the USians think?
      >

      Yes, I think that's basically right. But more importantly, it is states that generally impose of real estate taxes of any kind, not the Federal government.

      W

    • Show all 28 messages in this topic