14307Re:Total land rent?
- Nov 14, 2012--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> RL: "The Fed, remember, was the genius that totalled up the value of all corporate-owned land in the USA and found it was NEGATIVE."It happened in 1993, and the Fed, instead of getting a clue and revising their land value calculation to bring it out of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, stopped publishing it (as they more recently stopped publishing M3). Prof. Michael Hudson has discussed this incident.
> JDK I don't recall seeing that.
> the one paper only said that some land"For many years Federal Reserve Board in its Flow-of-Funds, Balance Sheet of the U.S. Economy, broke down its estimates of economy-wide real estate values between land and buildings. The problem arose when the Fed discovered that its methodology produced nonsensical results -- a negative value of $4 billion for all land owned by non-financial corporations in 1993."
> could have negative value. And it simply was suggesting
> that theoretical models should not have constraints that the value of any
> particular parcel must be positive. But maybe we are referring to different
> papers. give cite.
> I thought Ed estimate of land value (not land rent value) might be low. So I tried to provide a survey of literature.All of which Prof. Hudson refutes.
> All you did was say it's a lowOTC, I have brought something much more useful to the table than your literature survey: a capacity for critical thinking.
> estimate and do a critique of what's out there but provided no actual data nor brought anything useful to the table.
> Land value tax skeptics (even open minded ones are going to want to seeSee Hudson, above, Gaffney 2008, etc.
> some data and analysis - so any serious land tax promoter has got to know
> what is out there and provided support for some alternative analysis of what the "base" for taxation is.)
> As to 6.4 trillion, the rent suggested by HGT for the US; yes HGT is aTrue. I suspect a great deal of potential government spending that is currently not feasible would become feasible -- and economically efficient -- if the land value it created could be recovered to pay for it.
> theory for the ideal, but it is a useful starting place. That you can show
> (or assert) that the 6.4 trillion spent by government at all levels
> annually in US last year is wasteful and corrupt spending does not mean
> that 6.4 trillion could not be spent usefully and non-corruptly.
> So it seems to me that it is still a good starting figure. And is certainly a wayIMO it's more an indication just how much waste and corruption there is in American government.
> to test any proposed figure like Ed's or anybody else;s figure.
> If we use Ed's figure for land value (which I agree seems low but whoBut surely the point is that however much LVT turns out to be, it is affordable by definition: SOMEONE is WILLING to pay the full market rent for the land, because that's how market rent is DEFINED. LVT CAN'T be more than that. Just imagine what someone would pay to rent your place (assuming it is not in a location that has much more productive potential uses), then deduct the relevant portion for maintenance, interest, depreciation, insurance, etc. on the improvements. That's your LVT bill.
> knows) then all government (in aggregate would have to levy a lvt of 53%
> of value. That's the kind of number that makes people do a spit take with
> whatever they are drinking. We(my two wage earner family of 3) couldn't
> afford to pay that much of our assessed land value (which you say is too
> low) per year. We just wouldn't have the income to cover it. I'm not sure even a UIE is going to help me on that one.
> As to assertion that most of the Total VALUE of land is in residentialHow do you know? The same sort of official figures that showed NEGATIVE aggregate value for all the land owned by non-financial corporations in the USA?
> land, I am skeptical about that on a national basis. It isn't true in Baltimore City.
-- Roy Langston
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>