Re: Spot the land taxer /find a rack renter
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
> Here's what I said:Harry seems often to be much keener on quoting
> "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."
what he said I said than on quoting what I
> This is what Roy says.Direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that
effect? Of course not.
> As one of the few members - perhaps the onlyAs by far my most vocal and industrious detractor,
> member - of Roy's supporters, you should check
> out what he says.
perhaps Harry should.
> He has made no attempt to hide this idea. ThisAgain, claims about what I believe would be more
> is what he believes.
interesting if accompanied by direct, verbatim,
in-context quotes of what I have said.
> (He doesn't believe as you do that the marginI won't presume to know what Walter believes,
> would come galloping in with full rent
> collection - not full rack-rent collection.)
as I can recall no direct, verbatim, in-context
quote where he expresses his opinion on that
question either way.
> I'll repeat. Georgist analysis suggests thatIMO that would more accurately be described as
> heavy collection, and eventually full
> collection, of rent will end rack-rent.
> This, because the economic consequences ofBut no flood of demand from productive people
> rent collection will stimulate a flood of now
> unused and under-used land on to the market.
now keeping their full wages, or investors
and entrepreneurs keeping the full profits of
> In such a situation, rack-rent isIf it ever existed.
> You have agreed that the margin would gallopI don't recall Walter saying that.
> in, thereby reducing rack-rent,
> but you still appear to accept Roy's argumentThat is what market rent IS.
> that rack-rent would continue with landholders
> grabbing everything it's possible to grab from
> I would love to know how they can do this withMaybe through demand also flooding the market?
> so much land flooding the market.
> The construction industry (perhaps a quarterPresumably building on land that yields little
> of the economy) would be bursting at the seams.
rent, for reasons that seem somewhat obscure.
> This is a more attractive picture than Roy'sWhile it might be a more attractive picture, it
> with its prediction that rack-rent would
> continue and that poor people would need to
> benefit from a rent tax exemption.
does not seem to me to be an accurate one.
-- Roy Langston
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
> > If prices drop, so does rack-rent increase,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?
> > 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