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

1755RE: [LandCafe] No land price with full land tax - simply is not true

Expand Messages
  • Neil Gilchrist
    Nov 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      Yes, it is a definition, almost a truism. It is the result. It is backed
      by reasoning and formulas. It is supported by the academic economists on
      this list such as Fred and Nic. I have presented the arguments and the
      maths. I should not need to do so again and will not be doing so. I am not
      sure if it is because I have presented these arguments and maths badly or
      whether some people are wedded so closely to an idea that nothing will sway
      them that this discussion is still going on. You can keep making your
      assertion as much as you like and it won't make it right. Let's see the

      It is very important what value attaches to a site. It isn't a land 'let us
      invent a figure' tax. It is a land 'value' tax.

      Yes, value is subjective. I guess that means you are not one of the people
      who were arguing that land value is the capitalized value of some unknown
      future rents and some unknown future increase in value.

      It does not matter that it is subjective. We are not interested in what
      figure is in someone's head. We concern ourselves with what value the
      market determines. A known value that can be proved objectively. The
      buyer's subjective value of the land may have been higher than he or she
      actually pays and the seller's subjective value of the land may have been
      lower than the price received. They reach a price that they can agree on ot
      there is no sale. Additionally, they are not alone. The presence of other
      buyers and sellers in the market plays a major part in determining the
      market price. A price that is on the public record.

      The lawyers on the list will tell you that a lease must have a term. Why is
      there this obsession with wanting to change the system of title? Do you
      feel that telling people their land values will fall to zero is not enough
      to ensure that there will never be political or poplar support for LVT that
      you need to tell people who bought title so they would not be tenants that
      they will become tenants again? I am surprised not to see people limping
      around at Georgist conferences from shooting themselves in the foot. And a
      few in wheel-chairs too, from shooting themselves in both feet.
      Increasingly, it is of no surprise that we have been so unsuccessful. It is
      a relief that the Greens and by contrast some hard-nosed economist are
      starting to see the virtue of LVT. Unfettered by 19th century dogma they
      are likely to be more influential.

      I admire George for his ability to see what is essential and not complicate
      matters by adding the unnecessary. It is not true for some of his


      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date: 20/11/2006
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic