RE: [LandCafe] Re: Detroit Land Grab
Yes I do post on the Mark Wadsworth site, which specialises in his carefully costed and worked-through proposals for LVT in the UK (the go-to place for British land value statistics >see Mr.K.).But he does n't believe in exemptions.At all.(Wait a minute, he does exempt Poor Widows, come to think of it)
In the below you are ignoring the possibility that LVT would have to keep going up to counter the inflationary effects of double exemptions per single property. Or that other taxes would have to be increased if too much LVT revenue was lost to exemptions.
As you say, double earner households have an existing advantage over singletons but is n't the exemption supposed to increase individual liberty?Exemptions per person not per property (cf. MIRAS in the UK) could make matters worse. Now the rent or land tax bill of X amount could be split two ways by double earners: with the UIE the land tax bill would with two exemptions deducted would be half of X and that would be split two ways. (Please point out where, and if, I am going wrong here.It seems obvious to me, but experience has shown me that this is not always a reliable guide!)
BTW I originally tried to find out how the UIE would work because it sounded like an intriguing idea .Patient inquiries have led me into
arguments over the East India Company, Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts, auto-union pension rights in Detroit,who was worse Marx or Malthus? and God knows what else besides.Still no answers to basic questions. Would you know whether the median land value figure he's talking about is the median for the whole of the USA ,or just the local tax area?
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 12:56:03 +0000
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Detroit Land Grab
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> You have obviously thought this through, in way which gives food for thought.At least you admit that UIE/D could inflate house prices/rents<
Rents/rental values, yes, house-prices, no, and if you think it through, I believe you understand why the two are different. I'm assuming 90+% recovery of land rents.
>:its your acceptance of this that occasions doubt e.g "Of course,an UIE/CD raises rent the exact moment it is implemented but as long as it is collected back again in LVT so what?If a percentage of LVT receipts goes back to the UIE ,everyone would afford the higher rents".This is how I see the UIE working but what's the point of collecting LVT if you are going to hand out a quite high percentage straight back again in exemptions ?<
Because people are entitled to it, land that is. Giving back a certain percentage means that everyone can afford some land, and the bigger the percentage, the better land people can use tax-free. A CD also doubles as a welfare-payment ofcourse, and will perhaps act a bit different (slightly less going into rents for those with little income).
>The" percentage of LVT receipts that goes back to the UIE" could be quite considerable when in the majority of cases two people are cashing in their personal exemptions per house/per domestic plot of land.It would help if the originator of this proposal ,were to indicate what he envisages (in facts and figures) the percentage of LVT back-channeled in exemptions would be.<
I can't speak for RLs scheme, but I think he has mentioned 20%. The percentage of receipts won't increase because people use them ofcourse, a percentage of revenue is a percentage of revenue. Just figure out what comes in, take out the desired percentage, and distribute it per capita.
>For the moment ,going by the parallel case of exemptions on mortgage interest payments , it appears quite likely that the effects of the UIE will not be as claimed. <
If LVT is collected, house-prices will come down to building costs, while rental values might well rise, I don't see that as a problem as long as people are given the opportunity to occupy decent land tax-free.
> If double exemptions per land tax demand were in operation,it is likely to be the case that the amount of LVT spent on local services and infrastucture etc would be diminished.<
In my scheme, I don't really envision LVT as a local tax, but the UIE can be used at a local level with success as well ofcourse. As I explained above, a percentage-of-revenue UIE means the shortfall will be only x% of total potential receipts, and will be more or less a recycling of revenue. If collected on a national(Europe)/state(US) basis, I envision that the percentage given back as a LVT/CD will be the same across the board, so it will act as a slight subsidy formarginal areas. Also, local expenditures doesn't need to be big. Things like Ed, healthcare, Police etc. are national mandates, and should be funded nationally. Local spending IMO is roads, sewage, rubbish collection, parks and libraries, which the quality of provision will be reflected in rental values. What percentages, I don't know, depends on the level of land rent of GDP. 10-15% of GDP can fund most sensible govt spending except for transfer payments, so anything above that should be distributed back out.
>There is obviously a wider point about whether you want to increase House Price Inflation ( commonly referred to as HPI in the UK) as a part of the national economy when diminishing the amount of money dysfunctionally invested in landed property is the whole point of the Land Tax in modern times.<
LVT collection with an UIE/CD won't increase house-prices, it will lower them.
>I am also a tad perplexed by the notion that it is a " good thing"per se for couples to have an advantage in buying a house and paying the LVT (which they can afford twice over)...Politically having a load of single people complaining that they can't afford to pay LVT at double the personal rate of couples is going to be nigh on impossible for Land taxers to deal with<
Well what is it like now then? Doesn't two-earner couples have an advantage over singles when it comes to buying/renting already? How can it be any different without actively redistributing from couples to singles? Older people can get a larger UIE/CD if needed. I do believe it is a good thing that two people are at an advantage to one, it encourages sensible use of land/housing. Aren't you over at Mark Wadsworth's from time to time? Hasn't he argued every point you are making?
- --- 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