- So the land value is so low that even 100% LVT won t pay the bills.So the answer is ...? Reduce the bills by not paying contracted pensions ! Get people to payMessage 1 of 395 , Aug 7, 2012View SourceSo the land value is so low that even 100% LVT won't pay the bills.So the answer is ...? Reduce the bills by not paying contracted pensions ! Get people to pay for things the LVT revenue won't stretch to!! Like fees for schools ,tolls on roads (incl outside your house),private fire insurance so when your uninsured neighbour's house goes up the whole block goes with it .Tea Party jibber jabber.
Truer to say if the product of LVT collection is n't big enough, its probably not up to the job on its own (without other action to pump money,jobs etc into the area,whereupon the LVT would stop the Ricardo effect of new money always putting up land values before, or instead of,doing any good)
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:19:59 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Detroit Land Grab
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
> I think the LVT is a great tool to rejuvenate any city, but I too see a problem when it comes to a case like Detroit. I live near Gary, and have given some consideration to how the LVT would work to help Gary. Problem is, once an area gets bad enough, no one wants to be there period. Not for cheap, not even for free. I think there's a point below which the problem must be tacked with specific initiatives, though I don't know what they'd be. Cases like Detroit or Gary pose very difficult problems.
There is one problem that cities like Detroit and Gary do have that LVT can't solve: land value is so low relative to population and required spending that even a very high LVT rate that recovers effectively all land rent, reducing land value right to zero, might not yield enough revenue to pay their bills. But as the Henry George Theorem shows, that only happens if they are wasting money on things land users won't willingly pay for. Exorbitant defined-benefit pensions, medical care, etc. for retired city workers would certainly be one of those things. AFAIAC, defined-benefit pensions should never be a part of any employment contract, ever. The liability is just too open-ended too far into the future (I also think it's absurd to enter into contracts that are guaranteed to outlive all the signatories, like 99-year leases).
-- Roy Langston
- ... Which might be why I haven t done so. Citizenship self-evidently isn t a question of natural law, and I ve explained why residence defined as six months +Message 395 of 395 , Sep 12, 2012View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
> The main point of resorting to natural law pronoucements of the kind you have bellowed is that they are supposed to help us determine what the various human-made laws SHOULD say. That is, if we have a question about know how some law should be constructed with respect to, e.g., who should receive various benefits and for how long or which protections of person or property must be enforced, or whatever, natural law claims are sometimes made--just as you have confidently made them in this context. It is, thus plainly circular to respond, when asked to specify the characteristics of some claimed natural law, "You'll have to consult the local legislature and courts--they'll tell us."Which might be why I haven't done so. Citizenship self-evidently isn't a question of natural law, and I've explained why residence defined as six months + reflects the relevant natural law principles.
-- Roy Langston