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

Re: Detroit Land Grab

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... I ll tell you why I don t take a look at it: it uses the fallacious, absurd, and dishonest land residual valuation method. It also uses an absurd,
    Message 1 of 395 , Sep 1, 2012
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

      > https://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/land-values/land-prices-by-state.asp
      >
      > Why don't you take a look at this data set. I am making a very specific
      > point about "residential land values".

      I'll tell you why I don't take a look at it: it uses the fallacious, absurd, and dishonest land residual valuation method. It also uses an absurd, anti-economic 1.5% depreciation rate for residential improvements, which only takes a brief _300_years_ to reduce a house's value to 1% of its value when built. That is a depreciation rate that would be roughly accurate for a typical Egyptian pyramid.

      IOW, that paper is nothing but a bunch of idiotic anti-LVT lies.

      > Here is also an interesting paper.
      >
      > http://realestate.wichita.edu/draft/research/Academic%20Research%20Files/LandTax/Land%20Tax%20with%20Negative%20Land%20Values%20-%20March%202012.pdf

      We have negative land value, do we? How convenient! Of course that calls for public revenue to pay those poor, put-upon landowners for performing the arduous public service of owning their land!

      Really, John? REEEEEAAAAAAALLLLLLYYYYY???

      Both these papers are absurd and dishonest anti-LVT propaganda from the Lincoln Institute, a known anti-LVT disinformation mill.

      -- Roy Langston
    • 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, 2012
        --- 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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.