Re: Why is no one here talking about Greece?
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty" <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1"I assumed it was as clear to others as it is to me.
> <roy_langston1@> wrote:
> > Of course. But there's a difference between
> > depreciation (loss of value) and deterioration
> > (loss of functionality).
> There are two sides to this statement. One, it
> seems to me that for most of this thread you've
> ignored this distinction.
> And two, on the other hand, functionality and value"Related" is not the same as "equivalent."
> are related.
> Of course though, when they do diverge its isTrue, people always need a place to live, whereas a
> mostly in the commercial rather than the residential
given type of business may disappear entirely
(drive-in theater, anyone?).
> But in the case of residential property, especiallyIt's fairly close, but not exact. In particular, even
> where there is zoning for residential (especially
> zoning for a particular kind of residential (single
> family) you have the "best use" and the relationship
> between function and value is pretty closely tied.
in a SFD area, land value may rise to the point where
perfectly livable old houses have no value because no
one who can afford the land wants to live in a house
of that sort.
> > Just becauseIt's not silly. It is fact; there are plenty of
> > a house may be nice and perfectly good to live
> > in doesn't mean it has any value.
> Just say this out loud a few times over the course
> of a week. And you'll see how silly it sounds.
houses like that here in Vancouver; and I have seen
some of them demolished. So please address the
facts I have taken the trouble to identify for you,
and restrain your urge to evade them by dismissing
them as "silly."
> > If the property would sellRight, because the logic goes the other way: the
> > for the same price without or without the house,
> > the house has no value. It's just that simple.
> This is a sound generalization, but it doesn't
> flow in any way from your prior statement, either
> in theory or in practical terms.
generalization explains the particular fact.
> Nor does it deal with the super distressed?? How does it "not deal with" such cases?
> neighborhood, where nobody wants to buy the
> empty lot next door either.
> There are times when the location is so bad thatIt's possible but extremely rare.
> it really does create a negative externality.
> "That's a great house, but I just couldn't liveOther potential buyers might not care so much about
> their with my family because the schools are so
> bad and the crime is (or is perceived to be) so
> high and the taxes (that part that falls on
> improvements is so high in comparison to outside
> the city.)"
the schools or crime. I agree that falsified
assessments are often a problem, but if the
improvements are being taxed too much, that is one
reason their value is impaired.
> I think that perhaps there can be a situationOf course, and I have identified some. But it can only
> where land value is, at times, negative.
happen when ownership carries a financial liability
that exceeds the economic benefits of use, such as an
obligation to remediate contaminated soil, liens that
must be satisfied, etc.
-- Roy Langston
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
> Henry George was adamant that full Land Value Tax,I don't recall him saying that, and it certainly isn't
> the Single Tax, would mean all would gain, no losers.
true. Many people will lose, especially in the
transition period. That is why we must design the
transition to be as painless as possible for the great
majority of landowners: those who own only the land
under their dwellings. And that is why restoring the
equal individual right to liberty through a universal
individual exemption (or, second best, a CD) is crucial
to our success. This is something Henry George either
did not understand or did not give enough weight to, or
the exemption would have been a central feature of his
Single Tax advocacy.
> All boats rise on the same rising tide.Er, those who can't be bothered swimming or walking are
drowned by a rising tide.
> * Will the corporations still be loyal to the US?Is a tapeworm loyal to its host?
> * Will they do everything to get the LVTYes. And that will include assassination. Let's not
> implementing government out?
kid ourselves on that score. This is serious business,
and the vital interests of some very powerful and
deeply evil people are at stake.
-- Roy Langston