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

Spot the land taxer :find the rack renter

Expand Messages
  • David Reed
    I am very grateful that Harry has taken the trouble to give my e-mail of 16th April a thorough going over.Even slightly flattered. However I stand by most of
    Message 1 of 20 , May 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I am very grateful that Harry has taken the trouble to give my e-mail of 16th April a thorough going over.Even slightly flattered.
       
      However I stand by most of the earlier e-mail ,which,he attaches to his e-mail of 7th May) though I welcome the clarity Harry brings to a dismally confused argument.
       
      Yet only half of this ,his central and very clearly expressed statement, stacks up:"The 100% of rent I want to collect is 100% of the community created value that attached to a location-not 100% of rack-rent.Roy wants to collect 100% of rack rent or the amount collected by land holders." It is the second sentence that stacks up: Roy does want to collect 100% of what landlords currently take but is squeamish about recognising it as rack rent because it casts LVT in a poor light.He then backtracks by offering everybody exemptions.
       
      (As I said in the original 16 th April mailing which was a plea to consider other LVT rates than 100% ; if you are going to not tax 25% of the land value why not set the rate at 75% and be be done with all the bother?Or 50% as in Tsingtao , a successful LVT exemplar ,Roy suddenly having come round to the use of precedents having previously expostulated that progress would never be made without previously untried  ideas [like his]being given a chance.)
       
      The bit that does n't stack up is the rent Harry does want to collect, which is not the market rent(too akin to rack rent) but variously" community created values " or price mechanism rent".It is possible  to visualise these concepts in theory but the market is going to steamroller over any such niceties.As RL is quite right (whatever next?) when he asks how the LVT is going to be worked out "But how can the amount be measured other than by competing bids in the market?"
       
      As I have said before: in a country like the UK where the younger generation is priced out of buying homes completely all this point scoring about rent is pointless and shameful .Georgists have to recognise that LVT is a simple way to stop land/house price inflation
      when attempts are made to put new money into the economy.So for God sakes start talking about land prices rather than rents (how many people rent the land under their homes?) and get into at least the 20th Century where successfully managing the money supply and preventing inflation is the principal  economic question. 
    • mattbieker
      ... That s a lie. Whether one agrees with Roy s theory or not, his theory is clearly that an exemption is morally necessary, as it secures some free land for
      Message 2 of 20 , May 9, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > I am very grateful that Harry has taken the trouble to give my e-mail of 16th April a thorough going over.Even slightly flattered.
        >
        > However I stand by most of the earlier e-mail ,which,he attaches to his e-mail of 7th May) though I welcome the clarity Harry brings to a dismally confused argument.
        >
        > Yet only half of this ,his central and very clearly expressed statement, stacks up:"The 100% of rent I want to collect is 100% of the community created value that attached to a location-not 100% of rack-rent.Roy wants to collect 100% of rack rent or the amount collected by land holders." It is the second sentence that stacks up: Roy does want to collect 100% of what landlords currently take but is squeamish about recognising it as rack rent because it casts LVT in a poor light.He then backtracks by offering everybody exemptions.
        >

        That's a lie. Whether one agrees with Roy's theory or not, his theory is clearly that an exemption is morally necessary, as it secures some free land for every person.

        > (As I said in the original 16 th April mailing which was a plea to consider other LVT rates than 100% ; if you are going to not tax 25% of the land value why not set the rate at 75% and be be done with all the bother?

        How would that help? That's the part you don't seem to get: taking less that 100% doesn't make rent cheaper for renters: it simply allows landowners to keep more rent. I've pointed this out at least two times prior to this, and you never acknowledge this fatal flaw.

        >Or 50% as in Tsingtao , a successful LVT exemplar ,Roy suddenly having come round to the use of precedents having previously expostulated that progress would never be made without previously untried ideas [like his]being given a chance.)

        That's a bald-faced lie. I defy you to find Roy saying any such thing. Is this what we need?

        > The bit that does n't stack up is the rent Harry does want to collect, which is not the market rent(too akin to rack rent) but variously" community created values " or price mechanism rent".It is possible to visualise these concepts in theory but the market is going to steamroller over any such niceties.As RL is quite right (whatever next?) when he asks how the LVT is going to be worked out "But how can the amount be measured other than by competing bids in the market?"
        >
        > As I have said before: in a country like the UK where the younger generation is priced out of buying homes completely all this point scoring about rent is pointless and shameful .Georgists have to recognise that LVT is a simple way to stop land/house price inflation
        > when attempts are made to put new money into the economy.So for God sakes start talking about land prices rather than rents (how many people rent the land under their homes?) and get into at least the 20th Century where successfully managing the money supply and preventing inflation is the principal economic question.
        >
        IMO, you really shouldn't be on this group at all. You have no use for geoist land theory at all, and simply view the issue as a means to offer more affordable housing. It's amazing to imagine that a socialist would have no problem with letting the Duke of Westminster collect millions of dollars of rent annually in perpetuity, but you apparently have no moral qualms with such a scheme.
      • walto
        The purpose of LVT is not solely to get young people into lower priced residences. I think that was the intent of rent control, though. W
        Message 3 of 20 , May 9, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          The purpose of LVT is not solely to get young people into lower priced residences. I think that was the intent of rent control, though.

          W

          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > I am very grateful that Harry has taken the trouble to give my e-mail of 16th April a thorough going over.Even slightly flattered.
          >
          > However I stand by most of the earlier e-mail ,which,he attaches to his e-mail of 7th May) though I welcome the clarity Harry brings to a dismally confused argument.
          >
          > Yet only half of this ,his central and very clearly expressed statement, stacks up:"The 100% of rent I want to collect is 100% of the community created value that attached to a location-not 100% of rack-rent.Roy wants to collect 100% of rack rent or the amount collected by land holders." It is the second sentence that stacks up: Roy does want to collect 100% of what landlords currently take but is squeamish about recognising it as rack rent because it casts LVT in a poor light.He then backtracks by offering everybody exemptions.
          >
          > (As I said in the original 16 th April mailing which was a plea to consider other LVT rates than 100% ; if you are going to not tax 25% of the land value why not set the rate at 75% and be be done with all the bother?Or 50% as in Tsingtao , a successful LVT exemplar ,Roy suddenly having come round to the use of precedents having previously expostulated that progress would never be made without previously untried ideas [like his]being given a chance.)
          >
          > The bit that does n't stack up is the rent Harry does want to collect, which is not the market rent(too akin to rack rent) but variously" community created values " or price mechanism rent".It is possible to visualise these concepts in theory but the market is going to steamroller over any such niceties.As RL is quite right (whatever next?) when he asks how the LVT is going to be worked out "But how can the amount be measured other than by competing bids in the market?"
          >
          > As I have said before: in a country like the UK where the younger generation is priced out of buying homes completely all this point scoring about rent is pointless and shameful .Georgists have to recognise that LVT is a simple way to stop land/house price inflation
          > when attempts are made to put new money into the economy.So for God sakes start talking about land prices rather than rents (how many people rent the land under their homes?) and get into at least the 20th Century where successfully managing the money supply and preventing inflation is the principal economic question.
          >
        • John
          ... Walto, you are correct, however in a country where the average age now of the first time buyer is way into the 30s, it is a great lever to get LVT in. BTW,
          Message 4 of 20 , May 9, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
            >
            > The purpose of LVT is not solely
            > to get young people into lower priced
            > residences.

            Walto, you are correct, however in a country where the average age now of the first time buyer is way into the 30s, it is a great lever to get LVT in. BTW, I bought my first house at the age of 20.
          • John
            ... Walto, The Britsh Labour Party s favourite think tank, Compass, when Labour were in power advocated LVT, lest than 2 years ago.
            Message 5 of 20 , May 9, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
              >
              > The purpose of LVT is not solely to get
              > young people into lower priced residences.

              Walto, The Britsh Labour Party's favourite think tank, Compass, when Labour were in power advocated LVT, lest than 2 years ago.

              http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/compass/documents/Compass%20Housing%20web.pdf

              It was to use LVT as a mechanism to prevent Housing Booms and Busts. A pity Gordon Brown did not have it in his manifesto last May. Then I am sure the current coalition would have been LibDem/Labour and LVT at the top of the list.

              "LVT would reduce and stabilise property prices, making both renting and owning homes cheaper for everyone,reducing the economic gulf between different tenures and placing the entire economy on a more robust and equitable footing"
            • walto
              ... I don t really have any problem with that--different strokes, etc.--except that, as David Reed s posts indicate, if the sole goal is to stop increases in
              Message 6 of 20 , May 9, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
                > >
                > > The purpose of LVT is not solely to get
                > > young people into lower priced residences.
                >
                > Walto, The Britsh Labour Party's favourite think tank, Compass, when Labour were in power advocated LVT, lest than 2 years ago.
                >
                > http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/compass/documents/Compass%20Housing%20web.pdf
                >
                > It was to use LVT as a mechanism to prevent Housing Booms and Busts. A pity Gordon Brown did not have it in his manifesto last May. Then I am sure the current coalition would have been LibDem/Labour and LVT at the top of the list.
                >
                > "LVT would reduce and stabilise property prices, making both renting and owning homes cheaper for everyone,reducing the economic gulf between different tenures and placing the entire economy on a more robust and equitable footing"
                >

                I don't really have any problem with that--different strokes, etc.--except that, as David Reed's posts indicate, if the sole goal is to stop increases in land prices or to get young people into Central London, there are numerous possibilities, some with a higher likelihood of success than LVT. I mean, why mess tax policies at all: you could just pass a law! It's like, if the goal is to be happy, there are drugs or pleasure centers in the brain that could be electronically stimulated. As many understand, though, those are but short-term palliatives. Geoism has generally somewhat higher goals, I think.

                W
              • John
                ... You are right. Getting younger people and those working in essential service into central London, or central anywhere for that matter, can be done without
                Message 7 of 20 , May 9, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  > > "LVT would reduce and stabilise
                  > > property prices, making both renting
                  > > and owning homes cheaper for everyone,
                  > > reducing the economic gulf between
                  > > different tenures and placing the
                  > > entire economy on a more robust and
                  > equitable footing"
                  >
                  > I don't really have any problem with
                  > that--different strokes, etc.--except
                  > that, as David Reed's posts indicate,
                  > if the sole goal is to stop increases
                  > in land prices or to get young people
                  > into Central London, there are numerous
                  > possibilities, some with a higher
                  > likelihood of success than LVT. I
                  > mean, why mess tax policies at all: you
                  > could just pass a law! It's like, if
                  > the goal is to be happy, there are drugs
                  > or pleasure centers in the brain that
                  > could be electronically stimulated.
                  > As many understand, though, those are
                  > but short-term palliatives. Geoism has
                  > generally somewhat higher goals, I think.

                  You are right. Getting younger people and those working in essential service into central London, or central anywhere for that matter, can be done without LVT.

                  But, LVT in the long term may mean less interference to get the young and essential workers into the center of expensive cities.
                • roy_langston1
                  ... As I have said many times, I want to recover 100% (but would not press for more than 99%) of the economic advantage of which landholders deprive others.
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 9, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed
                    <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                    > Roy does want to collect 100% of what landlords
                    > currently take but is squeamish about recognising
                    > it as rack rent because it casts LVT in a poor
                    > light.He then backtracks by offering everybody
                    > exemptions.

                    As I have said many times, I want to recover 100%
                    (but would not press for more than 99%) of the
                    economic advantage of which landholders deprive
                    others. This will not be the amount landholders
                    currently take, except by coincidence.

                    Mason Gaffney thinks -- and unlike Harry, has
                    actually provided some valid economic reasoning to
                    support the view -- that rents in a full land rent
                    recovery jurisdiction would be much higher, as the
                    economic advantage associated with not having to
                    pay other taxes would become rent. Harry thinks
                    the release of currently unused and underused land
                    into the market would reduce rents to a fraction
                    of their current level. I am pretty sure these
                    effects would roughly cancel each other in the
                    short term, while in the longer term rapid economic
                    growth would cause a parallel increase in rent.
                    Rent recovery can also be expected to change the
                    geographical distribution of rent, though it's not
                    clear exactly how.

                    > if you are going to not tax 25% of the land value
                    > why not set the rate at 75% and be be done with
                    > all the bother?

                    For the umpteenth time, exempting EACH INDIVIDUAL
                    from a modest, equal amount of land tax is very,
                    very different from exempting each LAND PARCEL
                    from a similar fraction of land tax. Is David
                    really unable to understand the difference between
                    providing a flat, universal individual exemption
                    from income tax, and just lowering the income tax
                    RATE while imposing it fully on all income from
                    the first penny?

                    > Or 50% as in Tsingtao , a successful LVT
                    > exemplar ,Roy suddenly having come round to the
                    > use of precedents having previously expostulated
                    > that progress would never be made without
                    > previously untried ideas [like his]being given
                    > a chance.)

                    Is David claiming that innovation cannot be
                    informed by prior historical experience, or that
                    having due regard for historical experience
                    implies never having a new thought?

                    > As I have said before: in a country like the UK
                    > where the younger generation is priced out of
                    > buying homes completely all this point scoring
                    > about rent is pointless and shameful .

                    Not when it is obvious that lack of understanding
                    of rent has led to the subsidies to idle
                    landowning that price the younger generation out
                    of the market.

                    > Georgists have to recognise that LVT is a simple
                    > way to stop land/house price inflation when
                    > attempts are made to put new money into the
                    > economy.

                    But that is only a small part of its effects.

                    > So for God sakes start talking about land prices
                    > rather than rents (how many people rent the land
                    > under their homes?)

                    One cannot understand land prices without
                    understanding the relationship between price, rent,
                    the tax rate, the discount rate and the growth rate.

                    > and get into at least the 20th Century where
                    > successfully managing the money supply and
                    > preventing inflation is the principal economic
                    > question.

                    It has been MADE the principal economic question
                    only by deleting the concepts underlying the REAL
                    principal economic question: How can we obtain
                    liberty, justice and prosperity?

                    -- Roy Langston
                  • Harry Pollard
                    David, You said: The bit that does n t stack up is the rent Harry does want to collect, which is not the market rent(too akin to rack rent) but variously
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 4, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment

                      David,

                       

                      You said:

                       

                      The bit that does n't stack up is the rent Harry does want to collect, which is not the market rent(too akin to rack rent) but variously" community created values " or price mechanism rent". It is possible  to visualise these concepts in theory but the market is going to steamroller over any such niceties. As RL is quite right (whatever next?) when he asks how the LVT is going to be worked out "But how can the amount be measured other than by competing bids in the market?"’

                       

                      When a full rent (not rack-rent) is collected – that is the free market advantage provided by the community – it becomes difficult or impossible for holders of vacant and under-used land to hang on to their land. They will either have to use it properly, or turn it over to someone who will.

                       

                      An important effect of collecting rent will be to fill the holes in the central city and send a firestorm through the slums. Maybe half or more of most cities are vacant lots and ancient and run down “improvements”. Yet building in the UK is a mockery. For those of you worried about the British economy it should be noted that construction is about a quarter of a country’s economy, yet housing seems to be about 137,000 at the moment. (You’ll recall that Bevan back in 1945 boasted he would solve the housing problem in 6 months and get 200,000 homes built. (Some 200,000 were falling down each year.)

                       

                      He failed

                       

                      Kevin Cahill compared Irish and UK building rates in 2001.  

                       

                      The UK, with a population of 60 million managed to build 170,000, whereas 52,000 new homes were built in the Irish Republic with  a population of 3.4 million. For Britain to equal the Irish home building rate, no fewer than 917,000 would need to be built. I suspect such a number of newly built homes in the UK is unlikely.

                       

                      Some 60 years ago, when Bartholomew checked more than 50 US city centers he found that an average 29% of their downtowns were vacant. Certainly a number of those holes have been filled, but the rest are 60 years older and probably ready for replacement.

                       

                      However, a full rent (not rack-rent) would release a lot of land on to the market and land prices would plummet. Essentially, rack-rents and rack-rent prices would collapse.

                       

                      Instead of rack-rents, we would have rents which would be paid to the community. All rent would go to the community – a 100% collection. However, rack-rent is taken from wages. When it disappears, it becomes part of wages. Instead of wages at subsistence levels (a result of rack-rent that is somewhat hidden by the all-pervasive welfare state) the wages of those at the bottom would increase – as would all other wages that rest on the wages of those at the bottom.

                       

                      Should 100% of rent be collected? As rent is the measure of advantage conferred by the surrounding community, none of it belongs to the landholder. It is just that all should be taken back by the people who created it.

                       

                      Land valuation is much easier than improvement valuation. To begin with, assessors would take advantage of all the information they have. As they continue, using land-value maps that allow easy comparison of valuations (any citizen can simply compare his valuation to all other valuations) it gets easier all the time. All land-values relate to each other unlike improvements that must be assessed individually.

                       

                      As I said elsewhere, at the end of World-War I (the war to end all wars) the Danes took a large area and valued the land for practice. They then practiced again, this time valuing the whole country but without levying taxes.

                       

                      It gets easier all the time.

                       

                      With regard to using the term ‘rent’ which you don’t like. We have to use it among ourselves because it correctly describes what we are talking about. What is used in political propaganda is another matter. You use whatever will be clearly understood by voters.

                       

                      When I fought North Ilford for the Liberal Party, I talked of Land-Value Taxation. I probably had less money than the local Tories paid the janitor of their headquarters. But, what I also had was a free mailing to every person in the constituency. This meant between 50,000 and 100,000 pieces of propaganda mailed out (I forget the size of the constituency). So, I didn’t mention rent – though that was what I was talking about.

                       

                      Umpteen years later, chatting to a Georgist in Windsor who married my wife’s sister, it turned out he had been converted in Ilford by my antics, so I suspect that others got the message too.

                       

                      However, perhaps we should use economic rent instead of rent and rack-rent for the present monopoly return to land.

                       

                      Harry

                       

                      ******************************

                      Henry George School of Los Angeles

                      Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

                      (818) 352-4141

                      ******************************

                       

                      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Reed
                      Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:27 AM
                      To: land cafe
                      Subject: [LandCafe] Spot the land taxer :find the rack renter

                       

                       

                      I am very grateful that Harry has taken the trouble to give my e-mail of 16th April a thorough going over.Even slightly flattered.
                       
                      However I stand by most of the earlier e-mail ,which,he attaches to his e-mail of 7th May) though I welcome the clarity Harry brings to a dismally confused argument.
                       
                      Yet only half of this ,his central and very clearly expressed statement, stacks up:"The 100% of rent I want to collect is 100% of the community created value that attached to a location-not 100% of rack-rent.Roy wants to collect 100% of rack rent or the amount collected by land holders." It is the second sentence that stacks up: Roy does want to collect 100% of what landlords currently take but is squeamish about recognising it as rack rent because it casts LVT in a poor light.He then backtracks by offering everybody exemptions.
                       
                      (As I said in the original 16 th April mailing which was a plea to consider other LVT rates than 100% ; if you are going to not tax 25% of the land value why not set the rate at 75% and be be done with all the bother?Or 50% as in Tsingtao , a successful LVT exemplar ,Roy suddenly having come round to the use of precedents having previously expostulated that progress would never be made without previously untried  ideas [like his]being given a chance.)
                       
                      The bit that does n't stack up is the rent Harry does want to collect, which is not the market rent(too akin to rack rent) but variously" community created values " or price mechanism rent".It is possible  to visualise these concepts in theory but the market is going to steamroller over any such niceties.As RL is quite right (whatever next?) when he asks how the LVT is going to be worked out "But how can the amount be measured other than by competing bids in the market?"
                       
                      As I have said before: in a country like the UK where the younger generation is priced out of buying homes completely all this point scoring about rent is pointless and shameful .Georgists have to recognise that LVT is a simple way to stop land/house price inflation
                      when attempts are made to put new money into the economy.So for God sakes start talking about land prices rather than rents (how many people rent the land under their homes?) and get into at least the 20th Century where successfully managing the money supply and preventing inflation is the principal  economic question. 

                    • Harry Pollard
                      Roy has introduced a new term speculative rent in place of my rack-rent. I have therefore changed rack-rent to speculative rent. It is important that Roy has
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 7, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Roy has introduced a new term speculative rent in place of my rack-rent. I have therefore changed rack-rent to speculative rent. It is important that Roy has come to realize that speculative rent is not the same as the advantage provided to location by the surrounding community – that these are two different concepts.

                         

                        Roy seems often to be much keener on quoting what he said I said than on quoting what I
                        actually said. (And that’s what he said about me.)

                         

                        The cause of speculative rent – that is monopoly rent – is that the monopolist can control supply to the market. In the case of land, large quantities of land don’t come to market even though they may be kept vacant or, more likely, used inefficiently as support for blighted property. It is likely that something like half the land in a city is poorly used.

                         

                        Many such landholders, when full rent (not speculative rent) is collected, will no longer be able to hold on to their land as it is. They will either have to make proper improvements, or release it to someone who would. Most of it – particularly the speculatively held lower rent land - will be abandoned and come to the market as “margin of production” land – the best available rent-free land. At the moment there is no rent-free land in the city. Speculative rents are determined by General Level wages – subsistence level wages.

                         

                        After full collection, and a general abandonment of speculative land, wages will be determined by the best available rent-free land. Rents will be determined not by the subsistence wage, but by the newly released abandoned land. Wages will be much higher than subsistence and central rents (as a differential) will be lower than they were under monopoly conditions.

                         

                        On the other hand, production will be higher in a central city where all land is used efficiently. This general improvement in the economy, because it raises the well-being of the community, will lead to higher rents.

                         

                        Removing production taxes will also increase wages and that could lead to higher rents, stemming from the greater wellbeing of the community.   

                         

                        However, Roy thinks that, with full collection of rent, speculative rent would remain. That there would be no unloading of land on the market, no infilling of vacant and under-used land, no best available rent-free land within the city boundaries.

                         

                        In Roy’s version, subsistence level wages would continue, albeit relieved by an exemption from paying rent. I say this is a welfare payment which Roy denies. Yet, is Trump likely to be pleased to increase his opportunity to get land, or will it be the subsistence level person who needs the exemption?

                         

                        Anyway, however vehemently Roy argues his case, he is simply wrong.

                         

                        Harry

                         

                        ******************************

                        Henry George School of Los Angeles

                        Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

                        (818) 352-4141

                        ******************************

                         

                        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston1
                        Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:30 PM
                        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Spot the land taxer :find the rack renter

                         

                         

                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed
                        <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                        > Roy does want to collect 100% of what landlords
                        > currently take but is squeamish about recognising
                        > it as rack rent because it casts LVT in a poor
                        > light.He then backtracks by offering everybody
                        > exemptions.

                        As I have said many times, I want to recover 100%
                        (but would not press for more than 99%) of the
                        economic advantage of which landholders deprive
                        others. This will not be the amount landholders
                        currently take, except by coincidence.

                        Mason Gaffney thinks -- and unlike Harry, has
                        actually provided some valid economic reasoning to
                        support the view -- that rents in a full land rent
                        recovery jurisdiction would be much higher, as the
                        economic advantage associated with not having to
                        pay other taxes would become rent. Harry thinks
                        the release of currently unused and underused land
                        into the market would reduce rents to a fraction
                        of their current level. I am pretty sure these
                        effects would roughly cancel each other in the
                        short term, while in the longer term rapid economic
                        growth would cause a parallel increase in rent.
                        Rent recovery can also be expected to change the
                        geographical distribution of rent, though it's not
                        clear exactly how.

                        > if you are going to not tax 25% of the land value
                        > why not set the rate at 75% and be be done with
                        > all the bother?

                        For the umpteenth time, exempting EACH INDIVIDUAL
                        from a modest, equal amount of land tax is very,
                        very different from exempting each LAND PARCEL
                        from a similar fraction of land tax. Is David
                        really unable to understand the difference between
                        providing a flat, universal individual exemption
                        from income tax, and just lowering the income tax
                        RATE while imposing it fully on all income from
                        the first penny?

                        > Or 50% as in Tsingtao , a successful LVT
                        > exemplar ,Roy suddenly having come round to the
                        > use of precedents having previously expostulated
                        > that progress would never be made without
                        > previously untried ideas [like his]being given
                        > a chance.)

                        Is David claiming that innovation cannot be
                        informed by prior historical experience, or that
                        having due regard for historical experience
                        implies never having a new thought?

                        > As I have said before: in a country like the UK
                        > where the younger generation is priced out of
                        > buying homes completely all this point scoring
                        > about rent is pointless and shameful .

                        Not when it is obvious that lack of understanding
                        of rent has led to the subsidies to idle
                        landowning that price the younger generation out
                        of the market.

                        > Georgists have to recognise that LVT is a simple
                        > way to stop land/house price inflation when
                        > attempts are made to put new money into the
                        > economy.

                        But that is only a small part of its effects.

                        > So for God sakes start talking about land prices
                        > rather than rents (how many people rent the land
                        > under their homes?)

                        One cannot understand land prices without
                        understanding the relationship between price, rent,
                        the tax rate, the discount rate and the growth rate.

                        > and get into at least the 20th Century where
                        > successfully managing the money supply and
                        > preventing inflation is the principal economic
                        > question.

                        It has been MADE the principal economic question
                        only by deleting the concepts underlying the REAL
                        principal economic question: How can we obtain
                        liberty, justice and prosperity?

                        -- Roy Langston

                      • roy_langston1
                        ... Henry George introduced the term, in a passage quoted by Dan Sullivan in a post on his land-theory list in response to a recent discussion between Harry
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 7, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                          > Roy has introduced a new term speculative rent
                          > in place of my rack-rent.

                          Henry George introduced the term, in a passage quoted
                          by Dan Sullivan in a post on his land-theory list in
                          response to a recent discussion between Harry and me:

                          "Land has no cost of production, since it is created by
                          God, not produced by man. Its price therefore is fixed -
                          1 (monopoly rent), where land is held in close monopoly,
                          by what the owners can extract from the users under
                          penalty of deprivation and consequently of starvation,
                          and amounts to all that common labor can earn on it
                          beyond what is necessary to life;
                          2 (economic rent proper), where there is no special
                          monopoly, by what the particular land will yield to
                          common labor over and above what may be had by like
                          expenditure and exertion on land having no special
                          advantage and for which no rent is paid; and,
                          3 (speculative rent, which is a species of monopoly
                          rent, telling particularly in selling price), by the
                          expectation of future increase of value from social
                          growth and improvement, which expectation causing
                          landowners to withhold land at present prices has the
                          same effect as combination."

                          -- The Condition of Labor: An open letter to
                          Pope Leo XIII

                          The difference between "monopoly rent" and
                          "speculative rent" is that monopoly rent is actually
                          a kind of extortion, as the tenant has no alternative
                          but starvation and must pay whatever is demanded.
                          Speculative rent merely increases the rent somewhat
                          by effectively reducing the supply of land. Tenants
                          are thus still at liberty to deal with less greedy
                          landlords.

                          > I have therefore changed rack-rent to speculative
                          > rent.

                          But in fact, they are different. Speculative rent
                          is limited by competition from other landowners.
                          The "rack-rent" Harry describes is more like the
                          monopoly rent a sole landowner can exact.

                          > It is important that Roy has come to realize that
                          > speculative rent is not the same as the advantage
                          > provided to location by the surrounding community
                          > - that these are two different concepts.

                          It is important that Harry has not yet realized that
                          speculative rent is precisely the economic advantage
                          obtainable by using the land, and is paid for by
                          speculators foregoing the rent on the land they hold
                          out of use. It is just as if the supply of land
                          were reduced, not as if it were all owned by a
                          single landholder.

                          > Roy seems often to be much keener on quoting what
                          > he said I said than on quoting what I actually
                          > said.

                          That is a bizarre claim coming from Harry, as his
                          usual complaint about my posts is precisely that I
                          do quote him directly, verbatim, in context,
                          line-by-line, and answer him likewise.

                          It would be interesting -- in fact, it would be
                          amazing -- if Harry could actually provide a direct,
                          verbatim, in-context quote where I quoted what I
                          said he said rather than what he actually said.

                          > (And that's what he said about me.)

                          The difference being that when I said it, it was
                          accurate.

                          > The cause of speculative rent - that is monopoly
                          > rent - is that the monopolist can control supply
                          > to the market.

                          No. The DIFFERENCE between speculative rent and
                          monopoly rent is precisely that speculators CANNOT
                          control supply to the market. They can only control
                          what they ask for THEIR OWN land holdings, and unlike
                          true monopolists, cannot prevent land users from just
                          dealing with less greedy landowners. That is why
                          speculative bubbles burst, but true monopolies just
                          go on and on.

                          > Most of it - particularly the speculatively held
                          > lower rent land - will be abandoned and come to the
                          > market as "margin of production" land - the best
                          > available rent-free land.

                          Harry has provided no explanation for how rent
                          recovery will prevent any more than one person from
                          being willing to pay to use such land, given the
                          economic advantages its proximity to population
                          centers would afford. I hope he will forgive my
                          skepticism that he will ever be providing one.

                          > Speculative rents are determined by General
                          > Level wages - subsistence level wages.

                          No, they are determined by the intersection of
                          supply with demand. Reduced effective supply
                          increases price. That's all.

                          > Rents will be determined not by the subsistence
                          > wage, but by the newly released abandoned land.

                          Why will no more than one person be willing to pay
                          to use that land? Will parents of young children no
                          longer want a back yard for them to play in? Will
                          the green of thumb somehow lose all interest in their
                          vegetables? Will working people who see their real
                          disposable incomes double or triple suddenly lose
                          interest in using land simply for their own enjoyment
                          rather than any productive rent-generating purpose?
                          And perhaps most importantly, if governments can
                          recover the full value their spending on services and
                          infrastructure creates in the land, and can acquire
                          that land at a near-zero capital cost, why would they
                          not want to provide more of such land-intensive
                          amenities as parks, wilderness preserves, wildlife
                          corridors, cycling and walking paths, etc.?

                          > On the other hand, production will be higher in a
                          > central city where all land is used efficiently.
                          > This general improvement in the economy, because
                          > it raises the well-being of the community, will
                          > lead to higher rents.

                          Correct. Economic growth has soon led to higher
                          rents everywhere large-scale rent recovery has been
                          tried.

                          > However, Roy thinks that, with full collection of
                          > rent, speculative rent would remain.

                          That claim is false. I simply see no reason total
                          rents should collapse as Harry hypothesizes, and
                          many respected geoists who are much more
                          knowledgeable on this issue than Harry or me,
                          including Mason Gaffney, agree with me, not Harry.

                          > That there would be no unloading of land on the
                          > market,

                          No, I have said no such thing. It is rather Harry
                          who apparently holds that there would be no
                          additional demand for land from households, firms
                          or governments in a rent recovery economy to take
                          up any of that land.

                          > no infilling of vacant and under-used land,

                          No, I have said no such thing. It is rather Harry
                          who seems to believe that no vacant or under-used
                          would be found suitable for uses that are currently
                          blocked by high acquisition costs and/or low real
                          disposable incomes.

                          > no best available rent-free land
                          > within the city boundaries.

                          Now, that is true: I don't believe there will be
                          any rent-free land within city boundaries, unless
                          it is because the land is designated for uses that
                          won't yield any rent.

                          > In Roy's version, subsistence level wages would
                          > continue, albeit relieved by an exemption from
                          > paying rent.

                          And by lower real prices and by relief from the
                          burden of taxation. I suspect that even without
                          an exemption, the real disposable incomes of
                          working people would roughly double, even with no
                          increase in real wages.

                          > I say this is a welfare payment which Roy denies.

                          Harry consistently misspells, "disproves."

                          > Yet, is Trump likely to be pleased to increase
                          > his opportunity to get land,

                          The Donald's opportunity to get land will likely be
                          greatly reduced, as there will (hopefully) be no
                          way for him to extract tax abatements on it from
                          local governments that have made him a real estate
                          billionaire.

                          > or will it be the subsistence level person who
                          > needs the exemption?

                          There is no doubt that those who are most harmed by
                          institutionalized violation of rights will also
                          benefit most by their restoration. It was not slave
                          owners or free citizens who did not own slaves who
                          benefited most by emancipation. It was the slaves.
                          I am at a loss to understand why such self-evident
                          facts seem consistently to elude Harry.

                          -- Roy Langston
                        • Harry Pollard
                          How about these quotes from George. I suppose if Henry can come down hard on rack-renting, so can I. The following selections from Social Problems: The simple
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 8, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment

                            How about these quotes from George. I suppose if Henry can come down hard on rack-renting, so can I.

                             

                            The following selections from Social Problems:

                             

                            “The simple truth is, that, under our laws [US laws] the Irish land

                            lords could rack-rent, distrain, evict, or absent themselves,

                            as they pleased, and without any restriction from Ulster

                            tenant-right or legal requirement of compensation for

                            improvements.”

                             

                            “The truth is that the Irish land system is simply the

                            general system of modern civilization. In no essential

                            feature does it differ from the system that obtains here

                            in what we are accustomed to consider the freest country

                            under the sun. . . . . . . .  As for rack-rent, which is

                            simply a rent fixed at short intervals by competition, that

                            is in the United States even a more common way of letting

                            land than in Ireland.”

                             

                            From Social Problems:

                             

                            “English landlordism seems more hateful than the same system in America,

                            it is only because this is a new country, not yet quite fenced in. But,

                            as a matter of law, these “my lords”  and  “your  graces,” who  are  now

                            getting themselves far greater estates in the  United  States  than  they

                            have in their own country, have more power as landlords here than there.

                            In Ireland, especially, the tendency of legislation for a series of years

                            has been to restrain the power  of  the  landlord  in  dealing  with  the

                            tenant. In the United States he has in all its fullness the unrestricted

                            power of doing as he pleases with his own. Rack-renting is with us the

                            common, almost the exclusive, form of renting.”

                             

                            “Rack-renting is with us the common, almost exclusive, form of renting.” Has this changed? Or, does it still exist? There eems to be no reason for landlords to do anything other than squeeze as much as they can from their tenants.

                             

                            Massive welfare legislation attempts to make things easier for tenants, tries to mitigate the various deleterious effects of rack-renting, but it would be better to end it, which is what the full collection of rent would do.

                             

                            Sounds right to me!

                             

                            Harry

                             

                            ******************************

                            Henry George School of Los Angeles

                            Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

                            (818) 352-4141

                            ******************************

                             

                            From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston1
                            Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:58 PM
                            To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Spot the land taxer :find the rack renter

                             

                             

                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                            > Roy has introduced a new term speculative rent
                            > in place of my rack-rent.

                            Henry George introduced the term, in a passage quoted
                            by Dan Sullivan in a post on his land-theory list in
                            response to a recent discussion between Harry and me:

                            "Land has no cost of production, since it is created by
                            God, not produced by man. Its price therefore is fixed -
                            1 (monopoly rent), where land is held in close monopoly,
                            by what the owners can extract from the users under
                            penalty of deprivation and consequently of starvation,
                            and amounts to all that common labor can earn on it
                            beyond what is necessary to life;
                            2 (economic rent proper), where there is no special
                            monopoly, by what the particular land will yield to
                            common labor over and above what may be had by like
                            expenditure and exertion on land having no special
                            advantage and for which no rent is paid; and,
                            3 (speculative rent, which is a species of monopoly
                            rent, telling particularly in selling price), by the
                            expectation of future increase of value from social
                            growth and improvement, which expectation causing
                            landowners to withhold land at present prices has the
                            same effect as combination."

                            -- The Condition of Labor: An open letter to
                            Pope Leo XIII

                            The difference between "monopoly rent" and
                            "speculative rent" is that monopoly rent is actually
                            a kind of extortion, as the tenant has no alternative
                            but starvation and must pay whatever is demanded.
                            Speculative rent merely increases the rent somewhat
                            by effectively reducing the supply of land. Tenants
                            are thus still at liberty to deal with less greedy
                            landlords.

                            > I have therefore changed rack-rent to speculative
                            > rent.

                            But in fact, they are different. Speculative rent
                            is limited by competition from other landowners.
                            The "rack-rent" Harry describes is more like the
                            monopoly rent a sole landowner can exact.

                            > It is important that Roy has come to realize that
                            > speculative rent is not the same as the advantage
                            > provided to location by the surrounding community
                            > - that these are two different concepts.

                            It is important that Harry has not yet realized that
                            speculative rent is precisely the economic advantage
                            obtainable by using the land, and is paid for by
                            speculators foregoing the rent on the land they hold
                            out of use. It is just as if the supply of land
                            were reduced, not as if it were all owned by a
                            single landholder.

                            > Roy seems often to be much keener on quoting what
                            > he said I said than on quoting what I actually
                            > said.

                            That is a bizarre claim coming from Harry, as his
                            usual complaint about my posts is precisely that I
                            do quote him directly, verbatim, in context,
                            line-by-line, and answer him likewise.

                            It would be interesting -- in fact, it would be
                            amazing -- if Harry could actually provide a direct,
                            verbatim, in-context quote where I quoted what I
                            said he said rather than what he actually said.

                            > (And that's what he said about me.)

                            The difference being that when I said it, it was
                            accurate.

                            > The cause of speculative rent - that is monopoly
                            > rent - is that the monopolist can control supply
                            > to the market.

                            No. The DIFFERENCE between speculative rent and
                            monopoly rent is precisely that speculators CANNOT
                            control supply to the market. They can only control
                            what they ask for THEIR OWN land holdings, and unlike
                            true monopolists, cannot prevent land users from just
                            dealing with less greedy landowners. That is why
                            speculative bubbles burst, but true monopolies just
                            go on and on.

                            > Most of it - particularly the speculatively held
                            > lower rent land - will be abandoned and come to the
                            > market as "margin of production" land - the best
                            > available rent-free land.

                            Harry has provided no explanation for how rent
                            recovery will prevent any more than one person from
                            being willing to pay to use such land, given the
                            economic advantages its proximity to population
                            centers would afford. I hope he will forgive my
                            skepticism that he will ever be providing one.

                            > Speculative rents are determined by General
                            > Level wages - subsistence level wages.

                            No, they are determined by the intersection of
                            supply with demand. Reduced effective supply
                            increases price. That's all.

                            > Rents will be determined not by the subsistence
                            > wage, but by the newly released abandoned land.

                            Why will no more than one person be willing to pay
                            to use that land? Will parents of young children no
                            longer want a back yard for them to play in? Will
                            the green of thumb somehow lose all interest in their
                            vegetables? Will working people who see their real
                            disposable incomes double or triple suddenly lose
                            interest in using land simply for their own enjoyment
                            rather than any productive rent-generating purpose?
                            And perhaps most importantly, if governments can
                            recover the full value their spending on services and
                            infrastructure creates in the land, and can acquire
                            that land at a near-zero capital cost, why would they
                            not want to provide more of such land-intensive
                            amenities as parks, wilderness preserves, wildlife
                            corridors, cycling and walking paths, etc.?

                            > On the other hand, production will be higher in a
                            > central city where all land is used efficiently.
                            > This general improvement in the economy, because
                            > it raises the well-being of the community, will
                            > lead to higher rents.

                            Correct. Economic growth has soon led to higher
                            rents everywhere large-scale rent recovery has been
                            tried.

                            > However, Roy thinks that, with full collection of
                            > rent, speculative rent would remain.

                            That claim is false. I simply see no reason total
                            rents should collapse as Harry hypothesizes, and
                            many respected geoists who are much more
                            knowledgeable on this issue than Harry or me,
                            including Mason Gaffney, agree with me, not Harry.

                            > That there would be no unloading of land on the
                            > market,

                            No, I have said no such thing. It is rather Harry
                            who apparently holds that there would be no
                            additional demand for land from households, firms
                            or governments in a rent recovery economy to take
                            up any of that land.

                            > no infilling of vacant and under-used land,

                            No, I have said no such thing. It is rather Harry
                            who seems to believe that no vacant or under-used
                            would be found suitable for uses that are currently
                            blocked by high acquisition costs and/or low real
                            disposable incomes.

                            > no best available rent-free land
                            > within the city boundaries.

                            Now, that is true: I don't believe there will be
                            any rent-free land within city boundaries, unless
                            it is because the land is designated for uses that
                            won't yield any rent.

                            > In Roy's version, subsistence level wages would
                            > continue, albeit relieved by an exemption from
                            > paying rent.

                            And by lower real prices and by relief from the
                            burden of taxation. I suspect that even without
                            an exemption, the real disposable incomes of
                            working people would roughly double, even with no
                            increase in real wages.

                            > I say this is a welfare payment which Roy denies.

                            Harry consistently misspells, "disproves."

                            > Yet, is Trump likely to be pleased to increase
                            > his opportunity to get land,

                            The Donald's opportunity to get land will likely be
                            greatly reduced, as there will (hopefully) be no
                            way for him to extract tax abatements on it from
                            local governments that have made him a real estate
                            billionaire.

                            > or will it be the subsistence level person who
                            > needs the exemption?

                            There is no doubt that those who are most harmed by
                            institutionalized violation of rights will also
                            benefit most by their restoration. It was not slave
                            owners or free citizens who did not own slaves who
                            benefited most by emancipation. It was the slaves.
                            I am at a loss to understand why such self-evident
                            facts seem consistently to elude Harry.

                            -- Roy Langston

                          • roy_langston1
                            ... What?? Yet ANOTHER definition of rack-rent?? I decline to accept such nonsense. ... Because rents in the USA were changing rapidly, it made more sense to
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jun 8, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                              > The following selections from Social Problems:
                              >
                              > "As for rack-rent, which is simply a rent fixed
                              > at short intervals by competition,"

                              What?? Yet ANOTHER definition of rack-rent??

                              I decline to accept such nonsense.

                              > "Rack-renting is with us the common, almost the
                              > exclusive, form of renting."

                              Because rents in the USA were changing rapidly,
                              it made more sense to fix them at short intervals.
                              To call this "rack-renting" and imply that it robs
                              the tenant just as much as charging him rent for
                              improvements he himself has made is ridiculous,
                              nothing but a rhetorical flourish -- which George
                              was never loath to employ.

                              > Has this changed? Or, does it still exist?

                              Fixing rent at short intervals by market competition
                              wasn't rack-renting then, and still isn't.

                              > There eems to be no reason for landlords to do
                              > anything other than squeeze as much as they can
                              > from their tenants.

                              Which would be rent.

                              -- Roy Langston
                            • Harry Pollard
                              Roy wrote: Harry has provided no explanation for how rent recovery will prevent any more than one person from being willing to pay to use such land, given the
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jun 13, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Roy wrote:

                                 

                                Harry has provided no explanation for how rent
                                recovery will prevent any more than one person from
                                being willing to pay to use such land, given the
                                economic advantages its proximity to population
                                centers would afford. I hope he will forgive my
                                skepticism that he will ever be providing one.”

                                 

                                Don’t understand what you mean? Why should I provide an explanation “for how rent
                                recovery will prevent any more than one person from being willing to pay to use such land . . .” I don’t understand what you are getting at.

                                 

                                Harry

                                 

                                ******************************

                                Henry George School of Los Angeles

                                Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

                                (818) 352-4141

                                ******************************

                                 

                                From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston1
                                Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:58 PM
                                To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Spot the land taxer :find the rack renter

                                 

                                 

                                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                                > Roy has introduced a new term speculative rent
                                > in place of my rack-rent.

                                Henry George introduced the term, in a passage quoted
                                by Dan Sullivan in a post on his land-theory list in
                                response to a recent discussion between Harry and me:

                                "Land has no cost of production, since it is created by
                                God, not produced by man. Its price therefore is fixed -
                                1 (monopoly rent), where land is held in close monopoly,
                                by what the owners can extract from the users under
                                penalty of deprivation and consequently of starvation,
                                and amounts to all that common labor can earn on it
                                beyond what is necessary to life;
                                2 (economic rent proper), where there is no special
                                monopoly, by what the particular land will yield to
                                common labor over and above what may be had by like
                                expenditure and exertion on land having no special
                                advantage and for which no rent is paid; and,
                                3 (speculative rent, which is a species of monopoly
                                rent, telling particularly in selling price), by the
                                expectation of future increase of value from social
                                growth and improvement, which expectation causing
                                landowners to withhold land at present prices has the
                                same effect as combination."

                                -- The Condition of Labor: An open letter to
                                Pope Leo XIII

                                The difference between "monopoly rent" and
                                "speculative rent" is that monopoly rent is actually
                                a kind of extortion, as the tenant has no alternative
                                but starvation and must pay whatever is demanded.
                                Speculative rent merely increases the rent somewhat
                                by effectively reducing the supply of land. Tenants
                                are thus still at liberty to deal with less greedy
                                landlords.

                                > I have therefore changed rack-rent to speculative
                                > rent.

                                But in fact, they are different. Speculative rent
                                is limited by competition from other landowners.
                                The "rack-rent" Harry describes is more like the
                                monopoly rent a sole landowner can exact.

                                > It is important that Roy has come to realize that
                                > speculative rent is not the same as the advantage
                                > provided to location by the surrounding community
                                > - that these are two different concepts.

                                It is important that Harry has not yet realized that
                                speculative rent is precisely the economic advantage
                                obtainable by using the land, and is paid for by
                                speculators foregoing the rent on the land they hold
                                out of use. It is just as if the supply of land
                                were reduced, not as if it were all owned by a
                                single landholder.

                                > Roy seems often to be much keener on quoting what
                                > he said I said than on quoting what I actually
                                > said.

                                That is a bizarre claim coming from Harry, as his
                                usual complaint about my posts is precisely that I
                                do quote him directly, verbatim, in context,
                                line-by-line, and answer him likewise.

                                It would be interesting -- in fact, it would be
                                amazing -- if Harry could actually provide a direct,
                                verbatim, in-context quote where I quoted what I
                                said he said rather than what he actually said.

                                > (And that's what he said about me.)

                                The difference being that when I said it, it was
                                accurate.

                                > The cause of speculative rent - that is monopoly
                                > rent - is that the monopolist can control supply
                                > to the market.

                                No. The DIFFERENCE between speculative rent and
                                monopoly rent is precisely that speculators CANNOT
                                control supply to the market. They can only control
                                what they ask for THEIR OWN land holdings, and unlike
                                true monopolists, cannot prevent land users from just
                                dealing with less greedy landowners. That is why
                                speculative bubbles burst, but true monopolies just
                                go on and on.

                                > Most of it - particularly the speculatively held
                                > lower rent land - will be abandoned and come to the
                                > market as "margin of production" land - the best
                                > available rent-free land.

                                Harry has provided no explanation for how rent
                                recovery will prevent any more than one person from
                                being willing to pay to use such land, given the
                                economic advantages its proximity to population
                                centers would afford. I hope he will forgive my
                                skepticism that he will ever be providing one.

                                > Speculative rents are determined by General
                                > Level wages - subsistence level wages.

                                No, they are determined by the intersection of
                                supply with demand. Reduced effective supply
                                increases price. That's all.

                                > Rents will be determined not by the subsistence
                                > wage, but by the newly released abandoned land.

                                Why will no more than one person be willing to pay
                                to use that land? Will parents of young children no
                                longer want a back yard for them to play in? Will
                                the green of thumb somehow lose all interest in their
                                vegetables? Will working people who see their real
                                disposable incomes double or triple suddenly lose
                                interest in using land simply for their own enjoyment
                                rather than any productive rent-generating purpose?
                                And perhaps most importantly, if governments can
                                recover the full value their spending on services and
                                infrastructure creates in the land, and can acquire
                                that land at a near-zero capital cost, why would they
                                not want to provide more of such land-intensive
                                amenities as parks, wilderness preserves, wildlife
                                corridors, cycling and walking paths, etc.?

                                > On the other hand, production will be higher in a
                                > central city where all land is used efficiently.
                                > This general improvement in the economy, because
                                > it raises the well-being of the community, will
                                > lead to higher rents.

                                Correct. Economic growth has soon led to higher
                                rents everywhere large-scale rent recovery has been
                                tried.

                                > However, Roy thinks that, with full collection of
                                > rent, speculative rent would remain.

                                That claim is false. I simply see no reason total
                                rents should collapse as Harry hypothesizes, and
                                many respected geoists who are much more
                                knowledgeable on this issue than Harry or me,
                                including Mason Gaffney, agree with me, not Harry.

                                > That there would be no unloading of land on the
                                > market,

                                No, I have said no such thing. It is rather Harry
                                who apparently holds that there would be no
                                additional demand for land from households, firms
                                or governments in a rent recovery economy to take
                                up any of that land.

                                > no infilling of vacant and under-used land,

                                No, I have said no such thing. It is rather Harry
                                who seems to believe that no vacant or under-used
                                would be found suitable for uses that are currently
                                blocked by high acquisition costs and/or low real
                                disposable incomes.

                                > no best available rent-free land
                                > within the city boundaries.

                                Now, that is true: I don't believe there will be
                                any rent-free land within city boundaries, unless
                                it is because the land is designated for uses that
                                won't yield any rent.

                                > In Roy's version, subsistence level wages would
                                > continue, albeit relieved by an exemption from
                                > paying rent.

                                And by lower real prices and by relief from the
                                burden of taxation. I suspect that even without
                                an exemption, the real disposable incomes of
                                working people would roughly double, even with no
                                increase in real wages.

                                > I say this is a welfare payment which Roy denies.

                                Harry consistently misspells, "disproves."

                                > Yet, is Trump likely to be pleased to increase
                                > his opportunity to get land,

                                The Donald's opportunity to get land will likely be
                                greatly reduced, as there will (hopefully) be no
                                way for him to extract tax abatements on it from
                                local governments that have made him a real estate
                                billionaire.

                                > or will it be the subsistence level person who
                                > needs the exemption?

                                There is no doubt that those who are most harmed by
                                institutionalized violation of rights will also
                                benefit most by their restoration. It was not slave
                                owners or free citizens who did not own slaves who
                                benefited most by emancipation. It was the slaves.
                                I am at a loss to understand why such self-evident
                                facts seem consistently to elude Harry.

                                -- Roy Langston

                              • roy_langston1
                                ... To support the claim that the margin will come galloping even to within the city limits. -- Roy Langston
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jun 13, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                                  > Why should I provide an explanation "for how rent
                                  > recovery will prevent any more than one person
                                  > from being willing to pay to use such land . . ."

                                  To support the claim that the margin will come
                                  galloping even to within the city limits.

                                  -- Roy Langston
                                • Harry Pollard
                                  It hardly seems worth bothering with, but the short intervals simply describe the actions of the rack-renter. In an advancing economy the rack-renter doesn t
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jun 15, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    It hardly seems worth bothering with, but the short intervals simply describe the actions of the rack-renter. In an advancing economy the rack-renter doesn't want to tie himself to a long lease. He wants the opportunity to keep raising rack-rent rather than leave any of the rising rack-rent in the hands of the tenant.

                                     

                                    Harry

                                     

                                    ******************************

                                    Henry George School of Los Angeles

                                    Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

                                    (818) 352-4141

                                    ******************************

                                     

                                    From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston1
                                    Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:39 PM
                                    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Spot the land taxer :find the rack renter

                                     

                                     

                                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                                    > The following selections from Social Problems:
                                    >
                                    > "As for rack-rent, which is simply a rent fixed
                                    > at short intervals by competition,"

                                    What?? Yet ANOTHER definition of rack-rent??

                                    I decline to accept such nonsense.

                                    > "Rack-renting is with us the common, almost the
                                    > exclusive, form of renting."

                                    Because rents in the USA were changing rapidly,
                                    it made more sense to fix them at short intervals.
                                    To call this "rack-renting" and imply that it robs
                                    the tenant just as much as charging him rent for
                                    improvements he himself has made is ridiculous,
                                    nothing but a rhetorical flourish -- which George
                                    was never loath to employ.

                                    > Has this changed? Or, does it still exist?

                                    Fixing rent at short intervals by market competition
                                    wasn't rack-renting then, and still isn't.

                                    > There eems to be no reason for landlords to do
                                    > anything other than squeeze as much as they can
                                    > from their tenants.

                                    Which would be rent.

                                    -- Roy Langston

                                  • Harry Pollard
                                    I still don t understand what you mean by the statement. Harry ****************************** Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jun 15, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      I still don’t understand what you mean by the statement.

                                       

                                      Harry

                                       

                                      ******************************

                                      Henry George School of Los Angeles

                                      Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

                                      (818) 352-4141

                                      ******************************

                                       

                                      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston1
                                      Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 6:18 PM
                                      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Spot the land taxer :find the rack renter

                                       

                                       

                                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                                      > Why should I provide an explanation "for how rent
                                      > recovery will prevent any more than one person
                                      > from being willing to pay to use such land . . ."

                                      To support the claim that the margin will come
                                      galloping even to within the city limits.

                                      -- Roy Langston

                                    • walto
                                      ... In a rising economy, rents rise, as well as rack-rents, no? So such a tack would be expected of renters as well as rack-renters, wouldn t it? It is
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jun 15, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > It hardly seems worth bothering with, but the short intervals simply
                                        > describe the actions of the rack-renter. In an advancing economy the
                                        > rack-renter doesn't want to tie himself to a long lease. He wants the
                                        > opportunity to keep raising rack-rent rather than leave any of the rising
                                        > rack-rent in the hands of the tenant.
                                        >
                                        > Harry
                                        >

                                        In a rising economy, rents rise, as well as "rack-rents," no? So such a tack would be expected of renters as well as "rack-renters," wouldn't it? It is therefore, a bad way to try to distinguish the two.

                                        Why not just concur that rack-rent is taking more than the economic rent of the land--i.e., also stealing some tenant provided improvements? I mean, it's really stupid to keep fighting about this minor terminological point when there is really nothing between your two views on this matter.

                                        For crimity sake!

                                        W

                                        W
                                      • roy_langston1
                                        ... Marginal land is land that exactly one person is willing to pay to use. For land to be marginal, therefore, no more than one person must be willing to pay
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Jun 15, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                                          > I still don't understand what you mean by the
                                          > statement.

                                          Marginal land is land that exactly one person is
                                          willing to pay to use. For land to be marginal,
                                          therefore, no more than one person must be willing
                                          to pay to use it. To support his claim that even
                                          some land within city limits would become marginal
                                          under land rent recovery, Harry must provide some
                                          explanation for why no more than one person would
                                          be willing to pay to use such land.

                                          -- Roy Langston
                                        • roy_langston1
                                          ... Landowner. ... Landowner. ... Rent. ... Rent. ... Perhaps Harry can explain how the landowner s motive for exacting the full rent by keeping leases short
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Jun 15, 2011
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                                            > It hardly seems worth bothering with, but the
                                            > short intervals simply describe the actions of
                                            > the rack-renter.

                                            Landowner.

                                            > In an advancing economy the rack-renter doesn't
                                            > want to tie himself to a long lease.

                                            Landowner.

                                            > He wants the opportunity to keep raising rack-rent

                                            Rent.

                                            > rather than leave any of the rising rack-rent

                                            Rent.

                                            > in the hands of the tenant.

                                            Perhaps Harry can explain how the landowner's motive
                                            for exacting the full rent by keeping leases short in
                                            a growing economy differs from the purported
                                            rack-renter's motive to keep leases short in order to
                                            exact the full purported rack-rent in a growing
                                            economy.

                                            How is this "rack-renter" behavior in pursuit of
                                            rack-rent any different from the landowner's behavior
                                            in pursuit of rent?

                                            -- Roy Langston
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.