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

Re: Spot the land taxer /find a rack renter

Expand Messages
  • walto
    ... The first sentence here, up to the dash is true, the phrase after the dash is question begging (for reasons provided here perhaps 20 times). The rest is
    Message 1 of 64 , May 8, 2011
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
      >

      >
      > The 100% of rent I want to collect is 100% of the community created value
      > that attaches to a location - not 100% of rack-rent. Roy wants to collect
      > 100% of rack-rent, or the amount now collected by landholders. He apparently
      > believes that the 100% collection of rack-rent would keep the poorest at
      > subsistence level, whereupon he would help them out with his exemption
      > notion.

      The first sentence here, up to the dash is true, the phrase after the dash is question begging (for reasons provided here perhaps 20 times). The rest is not only demonstrably false, it's insulting. Isn't acting like that kind more of a junior high school thing? I thought you were a bit older.

      W
    • walto
      ... I take it that Harry is considering a place with a limited number of parcels where landowners can basically take all that isn t needed to keep their
      Message 64 of 64 , Jul 22, 2011
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:

        > > If prices drop, so does rack-rent increase,
        > > maintaining wages at subsistence.
        >
        > There is no rack-rent involved, as land users
        > are perfectly at liberty to just deal with less
        > greedy landowners. What would stop them? The
        > position of the margin is unaffected, so Harry
        > has to invoke some sort of mystical landowner
        > rack-renting power to keep wages at subsistence.
        >
        > -- Roy Langston
        >

        I take it that Harry is considering a place with a limited number of parcels where landowners can basically take all that isn't needed to keep their tenants alive. Imagine, e.g., an island with one landlord. The residents need to live someplace, so they'd be at this owner's mercy. In such a place, if the prices of tenant-consumed goods dropped, nothing would prevent the owner from raising rents to take the difference, would it?

        W
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.