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

Re: Why is no one here talking about Greece?

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston1
    ... I assumed it was as clear to others as it is to me. Guess not. ... Related is not the same as equivalent. ... True, people always need a place to live,
    Message 1 of 102 , Jul 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty" <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1"
      > <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.

      I assumed it was as clear to others as it is to me.
      Guess not.

      > And two, on the other hand, functionality and value
      > are related.

      "Related" is not the same as "equivalent."

      > Of course though, when they do diverge its is
      > mostly in the commercial rather than the residential
      > situation.

      True, people always need a place to live, whereas a
      given type of business may disappear entirely
      (drive-in theater, anyone?).

      > But in the case of residential property, especially
      > 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.

      It's fairly close, but not exact. In particular, even
      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 because
      > > 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.

      It's not silly. It is fact; there are plenty of
      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 sell
      > > 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.

      Right, because the logic goes the other way: the
      generalization explains the particular fact.

      > Nor does it deal with the super distressed
      > neighborhood, where nobody wants to buy the
      > empty lot next door either.

      ?? How does it "not deal with" such cases?

      > There are times when the location is so bad that
      > it really does create a negative externality.

      It's possible but extremely rare.

      > "That's a great house, but I just couldn't live
      > 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.)"

      Other potential buyers might not care so much about
      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 situation
      > where land value is, at times, negative.

      Of course, and I have identified some. But it can only
      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
    • roy_langston1
      ... I don t recall him saying that, and it certainly isn t true. Many people will lose, especially in the transition period. That is why we must design the
      Message 102 of 102 , Jul 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>

        > Henry George was adamant that full Land Value Tax,
        > the Single Tax, would mean all would gain, no losers.

        I don't recall him saying that, and it certainly isn't
        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 LVT
        > implementing government out?

        Yes. And that will include assassination. Let's not
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.