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

Re: Detroit Land Grab

Expand Messages
  • k_r_johansen
    ... He proposes a CD, with higher rate CDs for pensioners, which is for most intents and purposes, the exact same as a UIE for everyone whose LVT-bill is equal
    Message 1 of 395 , Sep 2 2:34 AM
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
      > @KJKYes 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)<

      He proposes a CD, with higher rate CDs for pensioners, which is for most intents and purposes, the exact same as a UIE for everyone whose LVT-bill is equal to or larger than the UIE. I'm also in the CD camp.

      >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.<

      Absolutely not, if I'm claiming that any rental value increase will be clawed back by the LVT, I'm assuming that LVT has to keep ut. The rate (percentage-wise) would be the same, the assessment needs updating at least annually.

      >Or that other taxes would have to be increased if too much LVT revenue was lost to exemptions.<

      Think about it, and please reply, how can an exemption/CD given as a percentage of total revenues, eat up all the revenues. It doesn't make sense.

      >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.<

      Why are you so wedded to exemptions per property? And why do you believe that having two incomes as opposed to one is against individual liberties?

      >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.<

      You misunderstand. The exemption *is* money. If you take a percentage of revenue and award it as exemptions, that's money you are distributing, which people can use to pay their LVT-bill. It's not an exemption to pay x% of the tax-bill per property, it's an exemption of x£ which can be used towards your LVT-liability, which you may choose freely to pay alone or together with someone else. What's the problem.

    • 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 10:01 PM
        --- 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.