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

Re: Confidential pls do not fwd.

Expand Messages
  • Jeffery Smith
    SMITH, Jeffery J. President, Forum on Geonomics 3604 SE Morrison St, Portland OR 97214 503/234-0809; jjs@geonomics; geonomics.org Y all; If you re to tax
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      SMITH, Jeffery J.
      President, Forum on Geonomics
      3604 SE Morrison St, Portland OR 97214
      503/234-0809; jjs@geonomics; geonomics.org

      Y'all;

      If you're to tax anything, then taxing the socially-generated value of
      locations is the most defensible both morally and practically, since it
      removes sites and resources from the objects of speculation, makes it
      possible to de-tax earnings and efforts, and allows economies to operate
      most efficienctly (good for the ecosystem upon which we all must live).

      However, don't overlook the rest of our commonwealth, our social surplus,
      all the money we spend not just on sites but all natural resources, and the
      EM spectrum, and to the holders of government-granted privileges such as
      corporate charters, utility franchises, bankers' sovereignty, etc.

      More fundamentally, it is hopeless to propose to homeowners and landowners
      to hand over all the value of their locations to the state, to policitians
      and bureaucrats. It makes little sense and has zero emotional appeal.
      Taxists ignore human nature and so are doomed to fail forever.

      Their only out is to propose sharing the value of nature. That is, we'd all
      pay land dues in to the common kitty and get "rent" dividends back, a la
      Alaska's oil dividend. That will become policy some day somewhere, but few
      land taxists will have played any role in bringing it about.

      Happy New Year!
    • Jeffery Smith
      SMITH, Jeffery J. President, Forum on Geonomics 3604 SE Morrison St, Portland OR 97214 503/234-0809; jjs@geonomics; geonomics.org Y all; If you re to tax
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 29, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        SMITH, Jeffery J.
        President, Forum on Geonomics
        3604 SE Morrison St, Portland OR 97214
        503/234-0809; jjs@geonomics; geonomics.org

        Y'all;

        If you're to tax anything, then taxing the socially-generated value of
        locations is the most defensible both morally and practically, since it
        removes sites and resources from the objects of speculation, makes it
        possible to de-tax earnings and efforts, and allows economies to operate
        most efficienctly (good for the ecosystem upon which we all must live).

        However, don't overlook the rest of our commonwealth, our social surplus,
        all the money we spend not just on sites but all natural resources, and the
        EM spectrum, and to the holders of government-granted privileges such as
        corporate charters, utility franchises, bankers' sovereignty, etc.

        More fundamentally, it is hopeless to propose to homeowners and landowners
        to hand over all the value of their locations to the state, to policitians
        and bureaucrats. It makes little sense and has zero emotional appeal.
        Taxists ignore human nature and so are doomed to fail forever.

        Their only out is to propose sharing the value of nature. That is, we'd all
        pay land dues in to the common kitty and get "rent" dividends back, a la
        Alaska's oil dividend. That will become policy some day somewhere, but few
        land taxists will have played any role in bringing it about.

        Happy New Year!
      • Jock Coats
        Sorry - I think I worked that out after I sent my message and reread the thread as quoted in yours. If you read through it one of the arguments started because
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 29, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Sorry - I think I worked that out after I sent my message and reread
          the thread as quoted in yours.

          If you read through it one of the arguments started because a well
          known figure on the Ownership mailing list had in fact already cross
          posted something from "his" mailing list to the Ownership one, which
          is against the rules of the Ownership one to save people who are not
          members of a particular e-list finding themselves and their arguments
          attacked unbeknownst to them with consequently no way of responding.

          The Ownership list has a history of being a bit of a bruiser, and
          when combined with people posting back from other lists and messing
          up the course of the discussion it has often become a thoroughly
          unpleasant list at times. Anyway, no big deal.

          On 29 Dec 2005, at 23:22, Wetzel Dave wrote:

          > Jock,
          > You wrote: "Though he's a bit naughty posting this discussion
          > elsewhere
          > without
          > asking."
          >
          > It was someone in Australia, not Kevin in Exeter who sent me these
          > exchanges, but why naughty? If we put something onto the web,
          > surely it is
          > in the public domain for anyone to forward, print or copy?
          >
          >
          > With Season's Greetings
          >
          > Dave
          >
          > Dave Wetzel
          > Vice-Chair TfL
          >
          > Tel: 020 7126 4200
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Jock Coats <jock.coats@...>
          > To: "Land Café ( lc1)" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Thu Dec 29 18:40:37 2005
          > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Confidential pls do not fwd.
          >
          > Yes, please do.
          >
          > Though he's a bit naughty posting this discussion elsewhere without
          > asking. As you will read, it's been very difficult discussing with
          > him because he "wants" information that I don't personally think is
          > terribly apposite to LVT - like exact comparisons between what a
          > household pays under the current system and what it would pay under
          > an LVT system and what this would mean.
          >
          > He seems very little interested in the principles behind LVT or its
          > other economically beneficial effects until we "get past" this hurdle.
          >
          >
          > On 29 Dec 2005, at 17:00, Wetzel Dave wrote:
          >
          >> I've been asked to contribute to these discussions. But time is
          >> short.
          >> (I have a very full-time job as well as my LVT activities).
          >> So can anyone please join this discussion group or correspond with
          >> Kevin
          >> Cahill direct?
          >> Kevin is the author of "Who Owns Britain" and "Who Owns the World"
          >> It would be useful if we could convince him that LVT is the
          >> economic answer
          >> to many problems.
          >> Kevin's e-mail is: ros@...
          >>
          >> Pls don't mention my name.
          >>
          >> Season's Greetings,
          >> Dave
          >> Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> *********************************************************************
          >> *
          >> *************
          >> The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are
          >> confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
          >> entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby
          >> exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or
          >> accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted
          >> files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you
          >> have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
          >> forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
          >>
          >> If you have received this email in error please notify
          >> postmaster@....
          >>
          >> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
          >> for the presence of computer viruses.
          >> *********************************************************************
          >> *
          >> *************
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
          >> ~-->
          >> AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now.
          >> http://us.click.yahoo.com/X6CDDD/lzNLAA/cUmLAA/J1EolB/TM
          >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
          >> ~->
          >>
          >> Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
          >> (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
          >> To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
          >> To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >> Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
          >> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> From: Globalnet mail uk <ros@...>
          >> Date: 25 November 2005 11:10:36 GMT
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@...
          >> Subject: Re: For Kevin - some LVT numbers
          >> Reply-To: Economics of Ownership Group <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >>
          >>
          >> Jock, I will infill in red my comments. But what I want you to do,
          >> and you
          >> have not done it, is engage with the critical questions I will
          >> outline
          >> below, the most critical relating to the three questions of who you
          >> propose
          >> to impose LVT on. One. Homeowners, who constitute 70% of
          >> 'landholders' but
          >> just 7.1% of the country (Max) Two Landowners/farmers who
          >> constitute 0.26%
          >> of the population, but who hold 69% of the acreage, and, three, the
          >> 'other'
          >> element of land, which is road, bog, mountain etc, but which is
          >> frequently
          >> held by Government.
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: Jock Coats
          >> <mailto:jock.coats@...>
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@... <mailto:OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:11 AM
          >> Subject: For Kevin - some LVT numbers
          >>
          >>
          >> Kevin,
          >>
          >>
          >> You challenged LVT campaigners to come up with some numbers for
          >> you. And
          >> since I've been meaning to engage you on this for a while, on duty
          >> tonight
          >> twiddling my thumbs I've been playing with some figures for you.
          >>
          >>
          >> Some of these you will recognize from your own excellent book -
          >> whatever use
          >> we may make of it, it is a fantastic piece of work by the way and
          >> indispensable to me.
          >>
          >>
          >> You talk about Taxation needing to raise £550bn. There's an early
          >> mistake.
          >> Figures from HM Treasury show that total government revenue in the
          >> latest
          >> year (2004-5) was in fact £448bn. Of this, some £224bn (exactly
          >> half - I
          >> hadn't noticed that before) is in Income Tax, National Insurance
          >> Contributions and Council Tax.
          >>
          >> Page 20 of the Treasury overview (on the Treasury web site) for
          >> 2005/2006
          >> gives the Government projections for 2005/2006. Expenditure is
          >> projected at
          >> £519bn, income at £487Bn.
          >> Government income is projected in detail as follows.
          >> Business Rates £19bn
          >> Council Tax £21bn
          >> Others £65bn
          >> Income Tax £138bn
          >> NI £83bn
          >> Excise £41bn
          >> Corporation tax £44bn
          >> Vat £76bn
          >>
          >> Total £487bn of which PAYE plus NI are £221bn or 45.3%
          >>
          >>
          >> Now, from your research, as of 1999 there were more or less 25m
          >> households
          >> in the United Kingdom, with a value estimated at that time of
          >> £2,400bn to
          >> which we'll add 50% as a conservative estimate of how much
          >> residential land
          >> has risen between 1998-9 and 2004-5. All this gives us an average
          >> tax per
          >> dwelling of around £9,000 per year (and recall my household is 20%
          >> below
          >> average income for working households in Oxford [yes I know it's an
          >> important distinction but let it go just now] and pays more than
          >> that in
          >> Income, NI and Council Taxes at the moment).
          >>
          >>
          >> There are approximately 25m households in the country. Of those 70%
          >> are
          >> privately owned. 11% are Council, 9% Housing Associations or the
          >> like, and
          >> 10% private rented.
          >> We will focus only on the privately owned. These are 17.5m in
          >> number. The
          >> gross value of the 17.5m is (£195,000 by 17.5m) is £3.4 trillion
          >> (£3,412,500,000,000) This is where I require you Jock, to come out
          >> of this
          >> cloud of fantastical figures and address the real situation. First,
          >> the
          >> gross value of housing is meaningless to the issue of what tax is
          >> to be
          >> paid. The actual issue is how much is each household going to have
          >> to pay.
          >> If we substitute just PAYE and NI, here is what we get. Each house
          >> has to
          >> pay over £12,000. (£12,628) As at least 20% of this housing ,
          >> maybe > more is
          >> OAP they will have to find this out of a pension of what £8,000
          >> pa ? Then
          >> there are all the other situations and my guess is that at least
          >> 50% of
          >> private homes are on an income of under £10,000 pa. And remember,
          >> I am
          >> asking you to tell me who is going to pay LVT, which you have not
          >> done. Is
          >> it the owners/holders of 7.1% of the country, which by implication
          >> you are
          >> saying it is, or are you going to include the owners/holders of 69%
          >> of the
          >> country. Further, are you including council owned housing, housing
          >> association houses ? (Private rented I assume automatically will be
          >> included)
          >> The intellectual flaw in your argument, and I think its what is the
          >> underlying error in the whole LVT case, is that you make a capital
          >> calculation (as you did), you then add a revenue calculation based
          >> on the
          >> capital value (LVT) and you then assume that can be applied to the
          >> real
          >> situation on the ground. I have just shown you that it cant. You tax
          >> according to the ability of pay of those being taxed. Tax in
          >> general is a
          >> revenue or income issue. You cannot tax people in the way you do,
          >> on a basic
          >> capital value that they cannot realise, and set the tax based on
          >> the capital
          >> value, irrespective of the ancome of the taxed. I have always said
          >> that
          >> regressing to 'rent' would always go wrong in an environment where
          >> there is
          >> no normal rent for 70% of those you propose to tax on the basis of
          >> this
          >> notional rent.
          >> And what at the end of the day is the difference between LVT and
          >> Council
          >> Tax. Our Council Tax is based, eaxactly as LVT is based, on a capital
          >> assessment. But the actual council tax is adjusted to an estimate
          >> of what
          >> people can or will pay.
          >> I can tell you that a bill for £12,600 delivered on the doorstep of
          >> houses
          >> where the income is less than £10,000 will win you the next
          >> election, for
          >> sure.
          >>
          >> On estimated current values, assuming 10 times capitalised rent in
          >> land
          >> values, and a total annual economic rental value therefore in
          >> 2004-5 of
          >> £360bn gives a tax rate of about 60% of economic rent.
          >> No Jock, the issue is not these grand, in the air figures. The
          >> issue is what
          >> is the average householder going to have to pay. (Assuming that the
          >> average
          >> householdre is going to be doing the paying, since no LVT proponent
          >> wants to
          >> tax agricultural land) Then there are savings...many billions are
          >> saved in
          >> collection of a much simpler tax. LVT encourages economic activity
          >> to look
          >> for the areas it can save tax in efficiently so brings wealth to
          >> poorer
          >> regions without expensive regional cross-subsidising. LVT reduces
          >> the
          >> capital cost of housing making it easier for people to afford to
          >> buy and
          >> reducing the costs of subsidising housing. The wealthy can no
          >> longer hide
          >> their taxable assets as they can with income so pay a fairer share.
          >> Jock, I am really sorry, but if the applied level of tax (LVT) is
          >> wrong, as
          >> it is, all this is just hokum. It is both untrue and meaningless.
          >> It works
          >> only if the tax works and I have shown that it doesnt. Or maybe you
          >> can
          >> explain how the average homeowner is going to find £12,600 in LVT.
          >> I cant
          >>
          >>
          >> Anyway - just thought you might like to see my workings as I ponder
          >> them.
          >>
          >>
          >> Jock
          >>
          >> --
          >>
          >> Jock Coats, Oxfordshire Community Land Trusts,
          >>
          >> c/o Wardens' Lodgings, Flat 1e, Block J Morrell Hall,
          >>
          >> John Garne Way, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
          >>
          >> Day: +44 1865 483353 Home: +44 1865 485019
          >>
          >> Mobile: +44 7769 695767
          >>
          >> jock.coats@...
          >> <mailto:jock.coats@...>
          >>
          >> (or) jock.coats@... <mailto:jock.coats@...>
          >>
          >> http://www.oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk
          >> < http://www.oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk> /
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> From: Globalnet mail uk <ros@...>
          >> Date: 23 November 2005 10:50:10 GMT
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@...
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >> Reply-To: Economics of Ownership Group <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: Ed Dodson <mailto:ejdodson@...>
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@... <mailto:OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:20 AM
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >>
          >>
          >> Ed Dodson here:
          >> Kevin Cahill wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >> Ed homes are built on land. How are you going to seperate them from
          >> each
          >> other ?
          >>
          >> Ed here:
          >> Kevin, I apparently assume some information about how land with or
          >> without
          >> housing is bought and sold and financed is general knowledge.
          >>
          >> Dear Ed, I think you could assume that the person who wrote "Who Owns
          >> Britain and Ireland" might just know how land for housing was
          >> bought and
          >> sold. Your answer has thrown no light whatsoever on the issue. You
          >> want
          >> houses (in the US) exempt from LVT, but not the land on which they
          >> stand. As
          >> its the owner of the home whose going to pay LVT, and the site
          >> will be
          >> included in the payment, how do you avoid charging the homeowner
          >> with LVT ?
          >> If you impose LVT on the developer, which seems to me to be part of
          >> your
          >> proposal, or even on the vendor of the land, the consequences in
          >> the UK and
          >> the US are the same. The tax gets passed on to the buyer. However,
          >> the
          >> underlying issue in the UK and the US is the same. There is not
          >> enough land
          >> (if you are going to exclude agricultural land, as everyone seems
          >> to want to
          >> do) to LVT to produce more than 20% of Government revenues, and
          >> then only at
          >> the price of a 500% to 1,000% tax hike. Urban US is about
          >> 60,000,000 acres.
          >> To get the Federal budget out of that, via LVT, would need an LVT
          >> of at
          >> least $16,600 per acre. (Assuming the federal budget is $1
          >> trillion, if its
          >> more, divide the one by the other.)
          >> Briefly, here's how this works where new construction is involved. A
          >> developer purchases a tract of land, applies for subdivision
          >> approval and
          >> has the tract surveyed and divided into individual parcels. The
          >> decision of
          >> how many parcels to create and how many housing units to construct
          >> as well
          >> as their size and amenities is driven by known market demand.
          >> Developers
          >> work on a minium ratio of 4-to-1, meaning that if their site
          >> acquisition and
          >> development cost is $100,000, they will look to sell the finished
          >> dwelling
          >> and underlying land parcel for a minimum of $400,000. So, the
          >> decision to
          >> build depends on whether there is demand for housing at this price.
          >> But what
          >> is the connection to LVT ?
          >>
          >> When the prospective buyer signs the agreement of sale and begins
          >> to look
          >> for financing, the mortgage lender will hire an appraiser to look at
          >> comparable sales and come up with a total property value. The
          >> appraisal
          >> report details the value of the house separately from the value of
          >> the
          >> underlying land parcel. Yes, but the purchaser does not buy the
          >> building as
          >> one transaction, and the site as another. In most cases the
          >> property is the
          >> building and the, site in one ownership. The owner is therefore
          >> responsible
          >> for any tax, including LVT, and saying your house is LVT free, but
          >> your
          >> sites in $16,600 is meaningless, since the burden of payment falls
          >> on the
          >> home dweller anyhow. Your extensive experience in the loans market
          >> seems to
          >> have blinded you to the underlying facts, which are extremely
          >> simple. You
          >> have the consequences on the ground in the UK, and they will be
          >> identical in
          >> the US. The homeowners wind up paying LVT indirectly if you impose
          >> it on the
          >> developer or landowners and directly if you impose it on the site.
          >> There
          >> isnt another owner of the site in most cases and ground rents where
          >> they
          >> exist (mostly in Ireland) are miniscule and of no financial
          >> consequence. So
          >> are you proposing to nationalise all sites under homeowners houses,
          >> some
          >> kind of Federal urban land trust ? I hate to tell you Ed, but
          >> nothing you
          >> have said makes any practical sense when you try and apply it on
          >> the ground.
          >> Its daft, as we say here. What is a good idea is taxing empty
          >> buildings and
          >> unused development land. That's actually what Harrisburg did. But
          >> they didnt
          >> carry on and hang LVT on every one else. They didnt becuse it does
          >> not work
          >> at all. For new construction, the appraiser comes up with a cost
          >> basis for
          >> one estimate of value. A second approach is using the comparable
          >> sales,
          >> making adjustments to the comparable properties for differences in
          >> room
          >> count, age, square footage, condition, etc. -- and making
          >> adjustments to as
          >> well to any differences in locational advantage attached to the
          >> land parcel.
          >>
          >> The process is similar with existing housing units, although the
          >> cost basis
          >> of valuation is not considered reliable.
          >>
          >> Then, there is the not altogether unique situation of someone
          >> purchasing an
          >> improved property, demolishing the structure and replacing it with
          >> a new
          >> structure. This is occurring in large numbers in resort communities
          >> along
          >> the U.S. coast of the Atlantic Ocean. The appraiser will assign a
          >> land value
          >> that begins with the purchase price, adding the cost of demolition
          >> (i.e., in
          >> order to get a "vacant" parcel of land to build on the purchaser
          >> must absorb
          >> the cost of demolition).
          >>
          >> In my own town of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, there are a scattering
          >> of land
          >> parcels listed for sale with realtors. One parcel, somewhat smaller
          >> than
          >> that under the homes in my immediate neighborhood recently sold for
          >> $125,000. Zoning restrictions mean that the only type of
          >> improvement that
          >> can be constructed is a one-family residential structure. Thus, the
          >> builder
          >> who purchased the land must be reasonably sure its costs of
          >> acquisition and
          >> construction can be recouped when the house is finished. As noted
          >> above, the
          >> house will likely carry an asking price of at least $500,000. The
          >> appraiser
          >> will use industry data to calculate construction costs and then
          >> assign a
          >> value to the land parcel based on acquisition cost, plus what is
          >> referred to
          >> as a "time adjustment" (reflecting the inflationary rises in land
          >> costs
          >> between the time acquired by the builder and the time the final
          >> product is
          >> sold to a consumer).
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> From: Globalnet mail uk <ros@...>
          >> Date: 22 November 2005 23:25:17 GMT
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@...
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >> Reply-To: Economics of Ownership Group <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: Ed Dodson <mailto:ejdodson@...>
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@... <mailto:OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:22 PM
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >> Kevin responding too
          >>
          >> Ed Dodson responding...
          >> Michael Binder wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >> Homes bought in this way should not be subject to an LVT. Ed here:
          >> All
          >> homes, Michael, ought to be exempt form taxation. No land ought to be
          >> exempt. Ed homes are built on land. How are you going to seperate
          >> them from
          >> each other ?
          >>
          >> I have my doubts about the feasibility of an LVT designed to
          >> basically
          >> discourge wealth from the wealthy and the land trusts that are used
          >> by them
          >> to avoid taxation or manage these properties (for example, the
          >> Kafritz
          >> Family Foundation which owns a bit of the DC area for the benefit
          >> of a few
          >> widows and I presume any heirs they might have). Ed here: Shifting
          >> the tax
          >> base to land values does not penalize the wealthy; it only
          >> penalizes those
          >> who seek to become wealthy without producing goods or providing
          >> services. I
          >> tend to agree with you that the tax laws attached to not-for-profit
          >> organizations have been greatly abused to the benefit of special
          >> interests.
          >> Whether a CLT's land is granted an exemption from the local
          >> property tax is
          >> a local decision. Communities grant this exemption to religious
          >> organizations, which serve a special interest. My view is that the
          >> only
          >> exemptions from payment of a full land value tax ought to be to
          >> organizations whose services are available to the general public on a
          >> cost-of-delivery basis.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> Why are you trying to apply a solution that the current facts
          >> contradict -
          >> you have now seen what the application of LVT to the UK does. It
          >> penalises
          >> 70% of the population with a 500% to 1,000% tax hike, falls 80%
          >> short of
          >> meeting current government expenditure and imperills the family
          >> asset of 70%
          >>
          >> of the population. And all that happens because you insist on
          >> fictional
          >> 'rents' and outmoded concepts. For what its worth, even at the time
          >> of the
          >> Kerensky government, 95% of the Russian population owned nothing,ie
          >> the
          >> solution might have worked - but even in Russia things are changing
          >> towards
          >> the western model, of 70% of the population having got out of
          >> poverty by
          >> possessiong an asset. Please try and grasp this very simple fact
          >> and then
          >> apply what we have learned by way of UK LVT
          >> Kevin
          >> Kevin
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: "Ed Dodson" <ejdodson@...>
          >> To: <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:19 PM
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >>
          >>
          >>> Ed Dodson responding...
          >>> Bill Ryan wrote:
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> Dodson: "I believe I understand the nature of totalitarianism.
          >>> Henry George offered a prescription for liberty, for
          >>> equality of opportunity..."
          >>> -----------------------------
          >>>
          >>> It is in fact a species of Bolshevism. And the
          >>> Bolsheviks are very adept at using the rhetoric of
          >>> "liberty, equality of opportunity." In their own
          >>> minds they may really believe that's what they are
          >>> actually advocating. The delusion of true belief in
          >>> the one true faith, completely divorced from practical
          >>> reality.
          >>>
          >>> Ed Dodson here:
          >>> History is on my side here, Bill. Lenin condemned Henry George's
          >>> writings
          >>> and Marx responded to George's proposals as a last ditch defense of
          >>> capitalism. In Russia, Tolstoy championed George's proposals to
          >>> the Czar
          >>> as
          >>> a way to avoid the coming revolution. And, after the 1905
          >>> "democratization"
          >>> of the Duma, Kerensky attempted to use George's proposals as the
          >>> way to
          >>> solve 'the land question' in Russia. In the 20th century, there is
          >>> a long
          >>> list of individualistic thinkers who either call George's
          >>> philosophy their
          >>> own or express sympathy. Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov, who
          >>> wrote and
          >>> edited 'The Freeman' come to mind. William F. Buckley has wrote
          >>> favorably
          >>> of
          >>> George's ideas, as has Milton Friedman. George's philosophy argues
          >>> against
          >>> monopoly in all its forms -- whether by individuals or by the
          >>> state -- for
          >>> 'free trade', against the taxation of incomes generated by the
          >>> production
          >>> of
          >>> goods and services, and for individual liberty.
          >>> -
          >>>
          >>> Dodson: "...His values are very similar to those espoused by
          >>> Thomas Paine."
          >>> -----------------------------
          >>>
          >>> The familiar lie from the Georgist propaganda machine.
          >>> In *Agrarian Justice* Thomas Paine did use the term
          >>> "ground rent." At that point the simlarity between
          >>> Paine and George comes to a abrupt stop.
          >>>
          >>> Ed Dodson here:
          >>> Others can read this essay and reach their own conclusions. Paine
          >>> did not
          >>> advocate the "single tax". This I certainly acknowledge. However, he
          >>> shares
          >>> with Henry George a fundamental recognition that the
          >>> monopolization of
          >>> land
          >>> (i.e., of nature) is a primary cause of human misery and
          >>> suffering. One
          >>> ought to remember, I argue, that Paine was born in a nation where
          >>> land
          >>> monopoly was deeply entrenched and where 'the land question' was
          >>> constantly
          >>> debated. Paine was brought into the circles of intellectuals that
          >>> included
          >>> Adam Smith, who wrote extensively on the subject. Georgists are
          >>> justified
          >>> in
          >>> claiming Paine as someone who understood the importance of the
          >>> problem,
          >>> even
          >>> if he did not articulate the same solution as other writers. Also,
          >>> what is
          >>> most important is Paine's broad commitment to the elimination of
          >>> privilege.
          >>>
          >>>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> Kevin replies. Dont agree. Dwellings at their most primitive
          >> satisfy or
          >> provide for shelter, one of the most fundamental human rights, and
          >> without
          >> which the right to life is imperilled. In the kind of neo
          >> capitalist, neo
          >> free market economy we have got, dwellings are assets. They do not
          >> belong to
          >>
          >> the class of consumable, but to the class of assets. What is
          >> important
          >> historically is that the possession of just these assets, is what
          >> distingusihes the whole population of developed countries, when
          >> compared
          >> with any previous period in history, especially the HG 19th Century
          >> period.
          >> In those days the entire population was characterised by 5%
          >> possession of
          >> assets, and 95 % dispossession of any assets. The situation now is
          >> possession of a capital asset of significance, by 70% of the
          >> population -
          >> and of proper shelter by most of the 30%, with say 5% in poor
          >> shelter. But
          >> consumables they aint, and this is why the LVT argument has run so
          >> far for
          >> so long. No one making the LVT argument has stopped and looked at
          >> the asset
          >> situation in the population, and then at what they are attempting
          >> to do to
          >> that assets and the people who own it.
          >> Kevin
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
          >> To: <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:57 PM
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >>
          >>
          >>> "I believe I understand the nature of totalitarianism.
          >>> Henry George offered a prescription for liberty, for
          >>> equality of opportunity..."
          >>> -----------------------------
          >>>
          >>> It is in fact a species of Bolshevism. And the
          >>> Bolsheviks are very adept at using the rhetoric of
          >>> "liberty, equality of opportunity." In their own
          >>> minds they may really believe that's what they are
          >>> actually advocating. The delusion of true belief in
          >>> the one true faith, completely divorced from practical
          >>> reality.
          >>> -
          >>>
          >>> "...His values are very similar to those espoused by
          >>> Thomas Paine."
          >>> -----------------------------
          >>>
          >>> The familiar lie from the Georgist propaganda machine.
          >>> In *Agrarian Justice* Thomas Paine did use the term
          >>> "ground rent." At that point the simlarity between
          >>> Paine and George comes to a abrupt stop. We have
          >>> "ground rent" today, as in Paine's time, though not in
          >>> the Georgist sense. It is not the hare-brained
          >>> "single tax," nor was it the "single tax" in Paine's
          >>> time, nor is the "single tax" anything close to what
          >>> Thomas Paine advocated.
          >>> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/paine-
          >>> agrarianjustice.txt
          >>>
          >>> What Paine advocated was a type of land bank scheme to
          >>> finance his proposed social dividend. The land bank
          >>> notes were to be backed by bonds pledged against land
          >>> in payment of the inheritance tax. The inheritance
          >>> tax would be paid by the landowners in the form of
          >>> bonds secured by their land, against which the land
          >>> bank would issue notes by a multiple of four that
          >>> would be utilized to pay the social dividend. The
          >>> inherited landowners would redeem their bonds from
          >>> their future r_e_p_e_a_t future income that is
          >>> augmented by the general increase to economic activity
          >>> that is enabled by the land bank notes being spent
          >>> into circulation by the dividend recipients.
          >>>
          >>> A keyword significantly ignored by the Georgists from
          >>> *Agrarian Justice* is "cultivated." The inheritance
          >>> tax that fractionally backs the land bank notes is
          >>> levied against land that is "cultivated," i.e.
          >>> productive in the sense that it in brings in an
          >>> objectively measurable income in exchange for the
          >>> consumable wealth that it produces, from which the tax
          >>> may be collected as a percentage.
          >>>
          >>> Vacant and undeveloped land does not fit that
          >>> definition.
          >>>
          >>> Nor do dwellings, which are items of consumption.
          >>> -
          >>>
          >>> --- Ed Dodson <ejdodson@...> wrote:
          >>>
          >>> Ed Dodson responding... Bill Ryan wrote:
          >>>
          >>> Georgism is mired in the arbitrary definitions of
          >>> classical economics. One of them is that there is
          >>> such a thing as ojective "value," whether in "land" or
          >>> "gold" or anything else. "Site value" is to be taxed
          >>> regardless of whether the "site" is realizing actual
          >>> income that might be taxed. Moreover, it is to be the
          >>> "single tax."
          >>>
          >>> It is the prescription for totalitarianism. And it is
          >>> predicated on a profound ignorance of the realities of
          >>> life.
          >>> -
          >>>
          >>> Ed Dodson here: Bill Grennon responded quite
          >>> appropriately to Bill Ryan's statements.
          >>>
          >>> In response to Bill Ryan's assertion that Henry
          >>> George's analysis is a "prescription for
          >>> totalitarianism," I would direct Mr. Ryan to any of
          >>> Henry George's writings. I believe I understand the
          >>> nature of totalitarianism. Henry George offered a
          >>> prescription for liberty, for equality of opportunity.
          >>> His values are very similar to those espoused by
          >>> Thomas Paine.
          >>> -
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> __________________________________
          >>> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
          >>> http://mail.yahoo.com
          >>>
          >>>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> From: Globalnet mail uk <ros@...>
          >> Date: 22 November 2005 13:05:54 GMT
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@...
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >> Reply-To: Economics of Ownership Group <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >>
          >>
          >> From Kevin, and thanks Jock.
          >>
          >> Jock, thanks for this addition. What you imply and what makes it
          >> neccessary
          >> for LVT proponents to suggest that LVT might replace all taxes, is
          >> just this
          >> point. That if you did swap taxes, it might make sense. But I've
          >> shown you
          >> that even by doing the de facto swap, of your PAYE, VAT etc for
          >> LVT, you
          >> only get 20% of what the Government currently needs to run the
          >> state. LVT
          >> can never raise enough money to fund current state revenues. And
          >> you have
          >> the OAP's and others, meaning that you are going to have to rebate
          >> 20/30% or
          >> more of LVT. LVT simply does not work when you work out who is
          >> going to pay
          >> it, at least here in the UK. And if you modulate it down to only
          >> equate with
          >> existing Council Tax, you spend £6bn to give a new name to an old
          >> tax, whose
          >> actual numbers you do not change. Just like Maggie with poll tax.
          >> But the
          >> mistake is inherent in the basis of LVT, the creation of a wholly
          >> notional
          >> 'rent', when rent is actually dead, and good riddance. So the real
          >> challenge
          >> to LVT'rs is whether you believe in private home ownership, and
          >> whether you
          >> actually understand who is going to pay LVT, from a fictional
          >> 'rent' that is
          >> way beyond many people's income. There are very instructive lessons
          >> for this
          >> kind of land tax, scattered throughout Professor Jack Powelson's
          >> book The
          >> Story of Land, available from the Lincoln Institute - in many cases
          >> it would
          >> end up, as it once did in history, and I quote, with people selling
          >> first
          >> their daughters, then their sons, and last their land. When you
          >> impose a
          >> punative tax like this on an asset, you undermine the owners
          >> capacity to
          >> keep the asset, if anything goes wrong. What you should be doing,
          >> in the
          >> real world, is making sure that those who have a home, can keep it,
          >> despite
          >> the ups and downs of economic cycles. LVT works in exactly the
          >> opposite
          >> direction, undermining ownership, and re creating feudal structures.
          >> Kevin
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: Jock Coats
          >> <mailto:jock.coats@...>
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@... <mailto:OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:40 PM
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >>
          >> Am at work so unable to give this my full attention, but on my
          >> income (less
          >> than average working household for Oxford) I think I calculate
          >> that in
          >> direct taxation - Income and National Insurance, I pay about £8,000
          >> per
          >> year.
          >>
          >> If one is aiming to *replace* income tax with LVT that's the better
          >> figure
          >> for comparison rather than the current property tax (council tax)
          >> that only
          >> itself raises less than 5% of public sector income, let alone all the
          >> indirect taxation if one were seeking to replace all taxes (except
          >> for other
          >> resource use or "sin" taxes).
          >>
          >> Jock
          >>
          >> On 22 Nov 2005, at 12:21, Globalnet mail uk wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> Kevin replies, below, and shows the cost of LVT to the average UK
          >> home owner
          >> - a tax hike of 500% to 1,000% and less than 20% of the government
          >> budget
          >> raised by LVT. Comment invited
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: <mailto:ejdodson@...> Ed Dodson
          >> To: <mailto:OWNERSHIP@...> OWNERSHIP@...
          >> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:02 AM
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >>
          >> Ed Dodson responding...
          >> Kevin Cahill wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >> Ed,
          >>
          >> I know Tony very well, but suspect we are at loggerheads on this
          >> one. As
          >> there is no such thing as a 'location rent' and no one currently
          >> pays such a
          >> thing, and the statistical trend is towards ownership, not rent, I
          >> simply
          >> cannot understand this point. Rent, to me, is history. Its
          >> reinvention is no
          >> more than a return to the 19th century and a serious diminution of
          >> citizen
          >> rights, the most crucial of which is the right to own land. Ed
          >> here: I must
          >> respectfully disagree with your assertion regarding the existence of
          >> 'location rent'. Every parcel of land has some annual rental value
          >> -- from
          >> zero (deserts with no natural resources below the surface) to very
          >> huge
          >> amounts (in the central financial districts of our cities). Land
          >> parcels
          >> yield a selling price because this rental value is lightly taxed;
          >> the net
          >> rental value is, therefore, capitalized into a selling price. Here
          >> in the
          >> U.S., many office buildings are constructed on land held under a
          >> ground
          >> lease. In some instances, when the terms of the lease expire
          >> ownership of
          >> the building is turned over to the ground lessor. I can understand
          >> your
          >> perspective as a citizen of the U.K. where a privileged landed
          >> aristocracy
          >> has dominated both the political system and the economy for
          >> centuries.
          >>
          >> There is a strand amongst UK Georgists which suggests that LVT might
          >> replace all tax. The arithmatic is simple. Tax currently has to
          >> raise £550
          >> Bn to finance the state. Ed here: Yes, this would be an ideal
          >> situation,
          >> but it might take a generation or longer to establish the
          >> conditions under
          >> which this might be feasible. The key is to achieve steady,
          >> noninflationary
          >> economic growth and full employment.
          >>
          >>
          >> There are three groups of landholders in the UK. Private
          >> landholders,
          >> mostly home holders, who are 70% of the population and who own
          >> about 2.8m
          >> acres. Private landholders who own 69% of the country (ag land) and
          >> who are
          >> 0.2% of the population. Ed here: As I am sure you will agree, the
          >> greatest
          >> proportion of the nation's land value exists in the business hearts
          >> of the
          >> major cities. My research efforts have all focused on the U.S., so
          >> I don't
          >> have anything to offer that would be helpful to put the size of
          >> these land
          >> holdings in context of total U.K. land values.
          >>
          >> Currently they run their business so badly that they have to be
          >> given a
          >> handout of £6bn a year. Ed here: What happens to farmers is
          >> interesting.
          >> When global commodity prices are high, farmers borrow to acquire
          >> additional
          >> acreage to cultivate. Then, as always occurs, global output
          >> increases and
          >> prices fall. The revenue to the farmer falls, they have trouble
          >> making loan
          >> payments and (even with heavy price supports and other subsidies)
          >> many are
          >> foreclosed on and the farms are turned over to "gentlemen
          >> farmers" (wealthy
          >> individuals looking for what we refer here to a "hobby farm" as a tax
          >> write-off) or to corporate agribusiness. A related irony is that
          >> subsidies
          >> make the numbers work -- at least for awhile -- contributing to
          >> rises in
          >> agricultural land prices.
          >>
          >> Finally there are owners of business land, probably 3% of the
          >> urban plot,
          >> about 1.8m acres. On this assumed rent basis, UK land will have to
          >> raise
          >> £550bn. That is just under £10,000 per acre. That is not feasible.
          >> The
          >> alternative is to LVT the gain made when ag land goes urban. That's
          >> about
          >> 14,400 acres per year, with a gross gain of £14bn - that's not
          >> going to pay
          >> for broken elbows in the Health service. The LVT figures dont
          >> work, and
          >> certainly dont work universally. Land in the UK nowhere, raises this
          >> notional 'rent'. The monet you apply the numbers, the whole thing
          >> falls
          >> apart. Please answer by using figures to show how LVT will raise
          >> £550bn, or
          >> which of the three categories of landholder is going to pay the
          >> LVT. I dont
          >> really want the arguments. I want the numbers. Ed here: I cannot
          >> respond to
          >> your request, Kevin, as I do not have the statistics on median or
          >> average
          >> land prices in U.K. cities. In response to a similar question from
          >> officials
          >> here in the U.S., I did a rough calculation of the total value of
          >> land
          >> currently used for residential, owner-occupany purposes. For the
          >> U.K. I
          >> calculate this as follows: There are 25 million households in the
          >> U.K., of
          >> which 70% are owner-occupants, or 17.5 million. The current average
          >> house
          >> price is around 193,200 pounds, and a conservative estimate of the
          >> land-to-total-value ratio is 40%, or 77,280 pounds per property.
          >> Thus, total
          >> land value of already developed residential land is around 1.3524
          >> trillion
          >> pounds. Assume a capitalization rate of 10% and the annual rent
          >> fund to be
          >> collected via taxation is 135.24 billion pounds. Even at a cap
          >> rate of 5%,
          >> this yields 67.6 billion pounds.Ed, you have put your finger right
          >> on the
          >> heart of the problem . Currently UK homes pay an annual 'tax' of
          >> about £600
          >> per dwelling. Based on your figures, those homes would each pay a
          >> new tax of
          >> over £7,000 in the 10% case, and just under £4,000 p.a. on the 5%
          >> basis. In
          >> other words your LVT plan would increase domestic home taxation by
          >> a factor
          >> of 5 times or 10 times its current rate. And even if you did that
          >> you'd only
          >> raise 20% of the current Government budget. You still have to find
          >> over
          >> £400bn somewhere. You are the first person to actually produce a
          >> figure that
          >> can be examined, and applied to the current situation however.
          >> Thank you. I
          >> also think that your argument has another, insoluble problem. More
          >> than 20%
          >> of UK private homes are held by pensioners on fixed and often low
          >> incomes.
          >> Youd would have to rebate at least 20% of your tax and probably
          >> 30%. But
          >> behind all the numbers is this failure to understand what a home
          >> owning
          >> democracy is in political and economic terms. The homeowners
          >> constitute 70%
          >> of the population in the UK, 82% in the Irish Republic. They are the
          >> majority of the people in most democracies. Now please explain why
          >> you are
          >> trying to penalise, on this extraordinary scale, those who have
          >> escaped the
          >> poverty that HG described so well ? Cant you see it ? This is how
          >> poverty in
          >> populations ends, with the possession of assets ? And it is precisely
          >> because LVT would hit that 70% so hard, it will never sail
          >> politically.
          >> Technically it is totally retrogressive, and seeks to reinvent the
          >> landlord/rent relationship that had the UK in a 3% owns everything
          >> 97% owns
          >> nothing situation when HG saw the UK in the 19th century. You dont
          >> need any
          >> of the technical economic terms you use in this discourse; in fact
          >> the
          >> discourse cannot really proceed if you dont do what, in all
          >> fairness you
          >> have just done, which is address the terminology to the current
          >> reality on
          >> the ground. I believe that you have done this and the answer is
          >> what I have
          >> given you. A 500% to 1,000 tax hike, and only 20% of the revenue
          >> needed to
          >> run the state. But as I say, its is also deeply anti democratic,
          >> given that
          >> democracy defines itself by the processess it developes to
          >> accomodate the
          >> people accupying the democratic arena. In the case of the UK and
          >> America
          >> etc, the democracy has defined one of its policies as that of
          >> private home
          >> owning. That policy has altered democracy itself, and it has also
          >> changed
          >> the relationship between the majority of the citizens (70% in the
          >> UK or 82%
          >> in Ireland) and the capitalist market economy in which they have to
          >> seek an
          >> economic existence. I hope this will now be taken up by others, to
          >> see if
          >> there is an LVT solution that does not have the effects you set
          >> out. Kevin
          >> Remember this is just currently improved property. Vacant lots with
          >> these
          >> same values would yield additional like revenue. One might want to
          >> look at
          >> how this compares with the total amount of revenue currently
          >> generated by
          >> the taxation of residential property (i.e., land and improvements).
          >> Even if
          >> the total is close to this, it still would make good public policy
          >> sense to
          >> exempt buildings and shift to the taxation of land values to (a)
          >> discourage
          >> hoarding of land and land speculation; and (b) remove the financial
          >> penalty
          >> for constructing or rehabilitating buildings.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> --
          >> Jock Coats, Oxfordshire Community Land Trusts,
          >> jock.coats@... <mailto:jock.coats@...>
          >> http://www.oclt.org.uk < http://www.oclt.org.uk> /
          >> c/o Wardens' Lodgings, Flat 1e Block J, Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
          >> Mobile: 07769 695767
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> From: Globalnet mail uk <ros@...>
          >> Date: 22 November 2005 12:21:12 GMT
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@...
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >> Reply-To: Economics of Ownership Group <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >>
          >>
          >> Kevin replies, below, and shows the cost of LVT to the average UK
          >> home owner
          >> - a tax hike of 500% to 1,000% and less than 20% of the government
          >> budget
          >> raised by LVT. Comment invited
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: Ed Dodson <mailto:ejdodson@...>
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@... <mailto:OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:02 AM
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >>
          >> Ed Dodson responding...
          >> Kevin Cahill wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >> Ed,
          >>
          >> I know Tony very well, but suspect we are at loggerheads on this
          >> one. As
          >> there is no such thing as a 'location rent' and no one currently
          >> pays such a
          >> thing, and the statistical trend is towards ownership, not rent, I
          >> simply
          >> cannot understand this point. Rent, to me, is history. Its
          >> reinvention is no
          >> more than a return to the 19th century and a serious diminution of
          >> citizen
          >> rights, the most crucial of which is the right to own land. Ed
          >> here: I must
          >> respectfully disagree with your assertion regarding the existence of
          >> 'location rent'. Every parcel of land has some annual rental value
          >> -- from
          >> zero (deserts with no natural resources below the surface) to very
          >> huge
          >> amounts (in the central financial districts of our cities). Land
          >> parcels
          >> yield a selling price because this rental value is lightly taxed;
          >> the net
          >> rental value is, therefore, capitalized into a selling price. Here
          >> in the
          >> U.S., many office buildings are constructed on land held under a
          >> ground
          >> lease. In some instances, when the terms of the lease expire
          >> ownership of
          >> the building is turned over to the ground lessor. I can understand
          >> your
          >> perspective as a citizen of the U.K. where a privileged landed
          >> aristocracy
          >> has dominated both the political system and the economy for
          >> centuries.
          >>
          >> There is a strand amongst UK Georgists which suggests that LVT might
          >> replace all tax. The arithmatic is simple. Tax currently has to
          >> raise £550
          >> Bn to finance the state. Ed here: Yes, this would be an ideal
          >> situation,
          >> but it might take a generation or longer to establish the
          >> conditions under
          >> which this might be feasible. The key is to achieve steady,
          >> noninflationary
          >> economic growth and full employment.
          >>
          >>
          >> There are three groups of landholders in the UK. Private
          >> landholders,
          >> mostly home holders, who are 70% of the population and who own
          >> about 2.8m
          >> acres. Private landholders who own 69% of the country (ag land) and
          >> who are
          >> 0.2% of the population. Ed here: As I am sure you will agree, the
          >> greatest
          >> proportion of the nation's land value exists in the business hearts
          >> of the
          >> major cities. My research efforts have all focused on the U.S., so
          >> I don't
          >> have anything to offer that would be helpful to put the size of
          >> these land
          >> holdings in context of total U.K. land values.
          >>
          >> Currently they run their business so badly that they have to be
          >> given a
          >> handout of £6bn a year. Ed here: What happens to farmers is
          >> interesting.
          >> When global commodity prices are high, farmers borrow to acquire
          >> additional
          >> acreage to cultivate. Then, as always occurs, global output
          >> increases and
          >> prices fall. The revenue to the farmer falls, they have trouble
          >> making loan
          >> payments and (even with heavy price supports and other subsidies)
          >> many are
          >> foreclosed on and the farms are turned over to "gentlemen
          >> farmers" (wealthy
          >> individuals looking for what we refer here to a "hobby farm" as a tax
          >> write-off) or to corporate agribusiness. A related irony is that
          >> subsidies
          >> make the numbers work -- at least for awhile -- contributing to
          >> rises in
          >> agricultural land prices.
          >>
          >> Finally there are owners of business land, probably 3% of the
          >> urban plot,
          >> about 1.8m acres. On this assumed rent basis, UK land will have to
          >> raise
          >> £550bn. That is just under £10,000 per acre. That is not feasible.
          >> The
          >> alternative is to LVT the gain made when ag land goes urban. That's
          >> about
          >> 14,400 acres per year, with a gross gain of £14bn - that's not
          >> going to pay
          >> for broken elbows in the Health service. The LVT figures dont
          >> work, and
          >> certainly dont work universally. Land in the UK nowhere, raises this
          >> notional 'rent'. The monet you apply the numbers, the whole thing
          >> falls
          >> apart. Please answer by using figures to show how LVT will raise
          >> £550bn, or
          >> which of the three categories of landholder is going to pay the
          >> LVT. I dont
          >> really want the arguments. I want the numbers. Ed here: I cannot
          >> respond to
          >> your request, Kevin, as I do not have the statistics on median or
          >> average
          >> land prices in U.K. cities. In response to a similar question from
          >> officials
          >> here in the U.S., I did a rough calculation of the total value of
          >> land
          >> currently used for residential, owner-occupany purposes. For the
          >> U.K. I
          >> calculate this as follows: There are 25 million households in the
          >> U.K., of
          >> which 70% are owner-occupants, or 17.5 million. The current average
          >> house
          >> price is around 193,200 pounds, and a conservative estimate of the
          >> land-to-total-value ratio is 40%, or 77,280 pounds per property.
          >> Thus, total
          >> land value of already developed residential land is around 1.3524
          >> trillion
          >> pounds. Assume a capitalization rate of 10% and the annual rent
          >> fund to be
          >> collected via taxation is 135.24 billion pounds. Even at a cap
          >> rate of 5%,
          >> this yields 67.6 billion pounds.Ed, you have put your finger right
          >> on the
          >> heart of the problem . Currently UK homes pay an annual 'tax' of
          >> about £600
          >> per dwelling. Based on your figures, those homes would each pay a
          >> new tax of
          >> over £7,000 in the 10% case, and just under £4,000 p.a. on the 5%
          >> basis. In
          >> other words your LVT plan would increase domestic home taxation by
          >> a factor
          >> of 5 times or 10 times its current rate. And even if you did that
          >> you'd only
          >> raise 20% of the current Government budget. You still have to find
          >> over
          >> £400bn somewhere. You are the first person to actually produce a
          >> figure that
          >> can be examined, and applied to the current situation however.
          >> Thank you. I
          >> also think that your argument has another, insoluble problem. More
          >> than 20%
          >> of UK private homes are held by pensioners on fixed and often low
          >> incomes.
          >> Youd would have to rebate at least 20% of your tax and probably
          >> 30%. But
          >> behind all the numbers is this failure to understand what a home
          >> owning
          >> democracy is in political and economic terms. The homeowners
          >> constitute 70%
          >> of the population in the UK, 82% in the Irish Republic. They are the
          >> majority of the people in most democracies. Now please explain why
          >> you are
          >> trying to penalise, on this extraordinary scale, those who have
          >> escaped the
          >> poverty that HG described so well ? Cant you see it ? This is how
          >> poverty in
          >> populations ends, with the possession of assets ? And it is precisely
          >> because LVT would hit that 70% so hard, it will never sail
          >> politically.
          >> Technically it is totally retrogressive, and seeks to reinvent the
          >> landlord/rent relationship that had the UK in a 3% owns everything
          >> 97% owns
          >> nothing situation when HG saw the UK in the 19th century. You dont
          >> need any
          >> of the technical economic terms you use in this discourse; in fact
          >> the
          >> discourse cannot really proceed if you dont do what, in all
          >> fairness you
          >> have just done, which is address the terminology to the current
          >> reality on
          >> the ground. I believe that you have done this and the answer is
          >> what I have
          >> given you. A 500% to 1,000 tax hike, and only 20% of the revenue
          >> needed to
          >> run the state. But as I say, its is also deeply anti democratic,
          >> given that
          >> democracy defines itself by the processess it developes to
          >> accomodate the
          >> people accupying the democratic arena. In the case of the UK and
          >> America
          >> etc, the democracy has defined one of its policies as that of
          >> private home
          >> owning. That policy has altered democracy itself, and it has also
          >> changed
          >> the relationship between the majority of the citizens (70% in the
          >> UK or 82%
          >> in Ireland) and the capitalist market economy in which they have to
          >> seek an
          >> economic existence. I hope this will now be taken up by others, to
          >> see if
          >> there is an LVT solution that does not have the effects you set
          >> out. Kevin
          >> Remember this is just currently improved property. Vacant lots with
          >> these
          >> same values would yield additional like revenue. One might want to
          >> look at
          >> how this compares with the total amount of revenue currently
          >> generated by
          >> the taxation of residential property (i.e., land and improvements).
          >> Even if
          >> the total is close to this, it still would make good public policy
          >> sense to
          >> exempt buildings and shift to the taxation of land values to (a)
          >> discourage
          >> hoarding of land and land speculation; and (b) remove the financial
          >> penalty
          >> for constructing or rehabilitating buildings.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----=20
          >> From: "John M=E9daille" <john@...>
          >> To: <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 7:50 PM
          >> Subject: Dzerzhinsky Returns
          >>
          >>
          >> On August 22, 1991, 50,000 people gathered in Moscow to watch the
          >> statue of
          >> Feliks ("Iron Feliks") Dzerzhinsky being torn from its position in
          >> front of
          >> the KGB building, "Iron Feliks" was the founder of the Cheka, the
          >> "Extraordinary Committee," which was responsible for the Red
          >> Terror, the
          >> KGB, and the Gulags. It was a great day for the Russians when he
          >> likeness
          >> came down.
          >>
          >> Now it is back. With little fanfare, a statute of the Kremlin's chief
          >> torturer has been restored to a place of honor in the New Russia,
          >> which is
          >> becoming a lot like the old Russia. Its president is a former (and
          >> unrepentant) KGB agent who seems intent on restoring the old order by
          >> suppressing democracy, increasing control of the media, and staging
          >> mock
          >> trials for his enemies. And the people have gone along with this,
          >> even
          >> welcomed it. Why?
          >>
          >> In an attempt to make herself an instant Western "free market"
          >> nation,Russia followed the "shock therapy" recommended by the IMF
          >> and the
          >> World Bank; the effects of this shock campaign on the Russian
          >> economy were
          >> only slightly less damaging than the effects of the "shock and awe"
          >> campaign on the economy of Baghdad. Harvard-trained wunderkind
          >> wrote plans
          >> for an economy they knew nothing about based on models which had
          >> never
          >> worked in practice. In the name of a free market, they ignored the
          >> long
          >> established series of de facto property rights which had grown up
          >> under the
          >> noses of the communist government. Instead of a plan which
          >> recognized these
          >> rights, such as employee and management buyouts, cooperatives,
          >> employee
          >> stock option plans or other well-known and well tested methods, a
          >> novel and
          >> untested voucher plan was concocted, one which dispossessed the
          >> current
          >> stakeholders and their de facto property rights in favor of a
          >> scheme that
          >> was easily manipulated by those with inside knowledge. The result
          >> was that
          >> the wealth of Russia was looted and passed into the hands of a
          >> small group
          >> of oligarchs, instant billionaires who gamed the system and
          >> outsmarted the
          >> IMF, the new Russian Federation, and the doctrinaire advisors who had
          >> dreamed up the scheme. The ordinary Russian was stripped of his
          >> ordinary
          >> and customary rights, and Russia has reverted to autocratic rule
          >> under a
          >> former KGB agent who appears intent on returning the country to the
          >> "good
          >> old days" when the government pulled all the strings and shut down
          >> dissenting voices.
          >>
          >> It seems that only a brush with pure "free market" economics could
          >> instill
          >> a nostalgia for Stalinism. The old order was at least some kind of
          >> order.
          >> By contrast, China neither sought nor accepted "aid" from the
          >> development
          >> agencies, but adopted a home-grown strategy of "incrementalism," an
          >> experimental approach involving continuous change in an attempt to
          >> discover
          >> what works and what doesn't on a small scale before transposing it
          >> to a
          >> larger scale. The results were dramatically different from those in
          >> Russia,
          >> the beneficiary of the West's best advisors. In a little more than a
          >> decade, China became an industrial powerhouse, the prime financier
          >> of the
          >> American debt, one of our biggest suppliers, and now a purchaser of
          >> important American assets, even strategic assets. This is by no
          >> means to
          >> endorse the Chinese brand of capitalism, but it is to point out how
          >> much
          >> better development goes without the aid of the development
          >> agencies, and
          >> how much better Capitalism functions without capitalist ideology.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> John C. M=E9daille
          >> www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm
          >>
          >> Amor ipse notitia est.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> From: Globalnet mail uk <ros@...>
          >> Date: 20 November 2005 18:40:02 GMT
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@...
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >> Reply-To: Economics of Ownership Group <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >>
          >>
          >> Ed,
          >>
          >> I know Tony very well, but suspect we are at loggerheads on this
          >> one. As
          >> there is no such thing as a 'location rent' and no one currently
          >> pays such a
          >> thing, and the statistical trend is towards ownership, not rent, I
          >> simply
          >> cannot understand this point. Rent, to me, is history. Its
          >> reinvention is no
          >> more than a return to the 19th century and a serious diminution of
          >> citizen
          >> rights, the most crucial of which is the right to own land. There
          >> is a
          >> strand amongst UK Georgists which suggests that LVT might replace
          >> all tax.
          >> The arithmatic is simple. Tax currently has to raise £550 Bn to
          >> finance the
          >> state. There are three groups of landholders in the UK. Private
          >> landholders,
          >> mostly home holders, who are 70% of the population and who own
          >> about 2.8m
          >> acres. Private landholders who own 69% of the country (ag land) and
          >> who are
          >> 0.2% of the population. Currently they run their business so badly
          >> that they
          >> have to be given a handout of £6bn a year. Finally there are
          >> owners of
          >> business land, probably 3% of the urban plot, about 1.8m acres. On
          >> this
          >> assumed rent basis, UK land will have to raise £550bn. That is just
          >> under
          >> £10,000 per acre. That is not feasible. The alternative is to LVT
          >> the gain
          >> made when ag land goes urban. That's about 14,400 acres per year,
          >> with a
          >> gross gain of £14bn - that's not going to pay for broken elbows in
          >> the
          >> Health service. The LVT figures dont work, and certainly dont work
          >> universally. Land in the UK nowhere, raises this notional 'rent'.
          >> The monet
          >> you apply the numbers, the whole thing falls apart. Please answer
          >> by using
          >> figures to show how LVT will raise £550bn, or which of the three
          >> categories
          >> of landholder is going to pay the LVT. I dont really want the
          >> arguments. I
          >> want the numbers.
          >> Kevin
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: Ed Dodson <mailto:ejdodson@...>
          >> To: OWNERSHIP@... <mailto:OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:55 PM
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >>
          >> Ed Dodson with a comment...
          >> Kevin Cahill wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >> Jock,
          >> Look forward to when you have a chance to come back and explain. The
          >> differences between me and local Georgists is I use numbers -
          >> houses etc,
          >> and the UK Georgists dont use numbers. My concerns arise from what
          >> the
          >> numbers suggest, which is that either LVT will simply be the Council
          >> tax/rates with a new name, or actually penalise home owners. Also,
          >> local
          >> Georgists seem to have no concept of what the scale of
          >> homeownership means
          >> here in the UK, in the USA, in Canada, in Ireland and in Australia.
          >> Homeowenrs dont own much land individually, but they are the
          >> largest group
          >> of landholders in each of those countries and any land tax is going
          >> to hit
          >> them first. I saw the list of exceptions, but they are so many and so
          >> fundamental that they call into question the whole meaning of LVT,
          >> or at
          >> least LVT as a universal tax.
          >> Kevin
          >>
          >> Ed Dodson here:
          >> Not all Georgists have the technical understanding of how to
          >> determine the
          >> short-run changes in tax obligation that will occur by moving
          >> toward the
          >> taxation of location rent. Have you had any contact with Tony
          >> Vickers? He is
          >> someone who, I am confident, understands the mechanics.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> This highlights a point I have made, without much success, to local
          >> Georgists, ie, that rent is dead for over 70% of the population in
          >> the
          >> countries I mentioned, and many others. People 'buy' or purchase
          >> their home
          >> (or principle asset) They do not rent. To try and say that a morgtage
          >> payment is rent, is a wholly wrong comparison, and conceals the
          >> reality,
          >> which is the transfer of an asset into the hands of an idividual. I
          >> suppose
          >> you could say that a person 'rents' the capital used to purchase
          >> the asset,
          >> but that is a secondary transaction, compared to the principle one.
          >> And the
          >> creation of an asset holding class, in the general population, has
          >> not been
          >> digested by economists Georgist or otherwise. Perhaps because this
          >> is the
          >> first time in known world history that it has happened and they are
          >> all a
          >> bit slow to see what is happening around them. But its the lack of
          >> facts,
          >> the lack of numbers, and the reliance on words, that scares me with
          >> the
          >> Georgists, that and the inability to see that Henry George was
          >> addressing a
          >> different problem in a different world. And on the issue of the
          >> implied
          >> monoploist and the implied 'gift' of land to the race, I am even more
          >> suspicious. I dont believe in God. Therefore I work from the facts
          >> as seen
          >> and provable. There is land. There are people. The Georgists say
          >> they are
          >> working from a moral position, but it appears to me to be a
          >> proscriptively
          >> deist position, with some undisclosed deity as the donor of land.
          >> Irrespective of deity or not, there is no morality where there is
          >> no free
          >> will. It seems to me that if this is true, and it is almost
          >> universally held
          >>
          >> to be true by most religions, then morality is worked out, not laid
          >> down. On
          >>
          >> this issue, mankind has to sit down and work out what is right. And
          >> you cant
          >>
          >> say there is no history (This is the implication in the 'monopolist'
          >> argumen) History has occurred and there are consequences that have
          >> to be
          >> dealt with, one being the way ownership of land occurs and the way
          >> land is
          >> distributed. The Georgists it seems to me, start with an assumption
          >> that all
          >>
          >> land owners are monopolist, ignoring the actual number of small
          >> land owners
          >> in the modern democracies. They also ignore the fact that 57% of the
          >> planetary surface is in state ownership of one kind or another.
          >> Small scale
          >> landownership in the form of a dwellings is the mechanism that has
          >> transformed the lives of about 1bn people, almost all in the
          >> developed
          >> nations. This has happened over about 150 years (excluding America,
          >> which
          >> started earlier than that, but was pretty much alone). It seems to
          >> me that
          >> the Georgists dont want to address this fact, or the other fact,
          >> the scale
          >> of state ownership. And yes, I have taken up with the local
          >> Geogists the
          >> issue of the totalitarian implication in the way they propose to
          >> disposs
          >> ordinary people of their land, that it has taken 12,000 years of
          >> awful
          >> history to get, awful history a good deal of it eye witnessed by
          >> Henry
          >> George and reported by him. Jack Powelson, who wrote The Story of
          >> Land for
          >> the Georgist Lincoln Institute, described both Russian and Chinese
          >> communism
          >>
          >> as restored feudalism, or just continuous feudalism in the case of
          >> Russia.
          >> His book is very important, not for the theories in it, which are
          >> rare, but
          >> for the facts he gathered. It is a great pity the Lincoln Institute
          >> dont do
          >> more to publicis the book. But perhaps its this conflict between
          >> the facts,
          >> and the totalitarian and bureaucratic implications in the LVT
          >> proposal, that
          >>
          >> have inhibited the Lincoln Institute?
          >>
          >> Kevin Cahill.
          >>
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
          >> To: <OWNERSHIP@...>
          >> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 2:40 PM
          >> Subject: Re: Georgist Fallacies
          >>
          >>
          >>> The Georgist scheme:-
          >>>
          >>> 1. There is such a thing as "site value" which may be
          >>> objectively ascertained by the relevant politburo.
          >>>
          >>> 2. The private possession of "site value" confers the
          >>> power to collect "rent" from the public to the
          >>> personal benefit of the monopolist which is unearned.
          >>>
          >>> 3. That "rent" is subsumed within income to
          >>> improvements such that income to improvements includes
          >>> an element of "rent" to "site value" that is unearned.
          >>>
          >>> 4. That "rent" beyond that which is actually
          >>> collected by the monopolist in the form of money may
          >>> be objectively imputed to a particular parcel by the
          >>> relevant politburo, even though there may be no
          >>> improvements or regardless of the extent of
          >>> improvements to the particular parcel.
          >>>
          >>> 5. Inasmuch as "rent" is unearned by the monopolist,
          >>> it is justifiably confiscated in the name of the
          >>> public for the "benefit of all," as determined by the
          >>> relevant politburo both to its collection and
          >>> disposition.
          >>>
          >>> 6. That both realized and imputed "rent" to be
          >>> confiscated in its totality in the form of money,
          >>> regardless whether or not the monopolist possessor of
          >>> "site value" has collected any money from his parcel,
          >>> or has any money at all.
          >>>
          >>> 7. All taxation to be abolished; government including
          >>> the relevant politburo to be funded in its entirety
          >>> from confiscated "rent."
          >>>
          >>> 8. After government has taken its cut off the top of
          >>> the confiscated "rent" for "legitimate" expenditure in
          >>> the determination of the relevant politburo, the
          >>> remainder to be paid to the public in equal shares as
          >>> its "dividend."
          >>>
          >>> Sieg Heil!
          >>> -
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> Jock Coats
          >>> <jock.coats@...>
          >>> wrote:
          >>>
          >>>> Oh not this again. Cross posting. Ignores topic.
          >>>> On 19 Nov 2005, at 14:08, William B. Ryan wrote:
          >>>>
          >>> [snipped]
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> __________________________________
          >>> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
          >>> http://mail.yahoo.co<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
        • John
          ... short. ... Kevin ... economic answer ... What group or forum is this from? Interesting in the LVT revenues gained from 60 million acres and the governments
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Wetzel Dave <davewetzel@t...> wrote:
            >
            > I've been asked to contribute to these discussions. But time is
            short.
            > (I have a very full-time job as well as my LVT activities).
            > So can anyone please join this discussion group or correspond with
            Kevin
            > Cahill direct?
            > Kevin is the author of "Who Owns Britain" and "Who Owns the World"
            > It would be useful if we could convince him that LVT is the
            economic answer
            > to many problems.
            > Kevin's e-mail is: ros@G...

            What group or forum is this from?

            Interesting in the LVT revenues gained from 60 million acres and the
            governments need for money to run the country. What hit me was that
            if LVT is introduced, the government would not require so much
            revenue to run the country.

            Many government jobs will disappear as they will be not necessary
            and many will transfer over to the private sector as the
            construction industry expands like mad. LVT will be a great
            incentive for enterprise expanding industry. There will be less
            people involved in collecting taxes. Thankfully, less, or no income
            for private bailiff companies who persecute people for council tax,
            and boy don't they make a wedge of money on other people's misery –
            and then they can do something useful, with those bald headed
            tattooed men digging some ditches or the likes.

            Less money spent on public housing as land is more freely available
            and proper planning would mean the private sector would cater for
            the vast majority of housing, mainly owner/occupation. Sometimes
            people need to step back a little and look at how it would be – a
            little projection.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.