Re: Detroit Land Grab
- --- 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 understands the political necessity to accommodate the widows, but not to accommodate homeownerism or individual rights to liberty? Maybe I should go to his site and try to straighten him out.
> 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.There is no such inflationary effect. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon and has nothing to do with LVT, which if anything would be DEflationary through its effect on debt levels, production costs, and wealthy, idle landowners' need to liquidate other assets to maintain their parasite lifestyles when their ability to be parasites by owning land has been removed.
Moreover, the number of UIEs is fixed at the number of resident citizens. So if two or more UIEs are applied to a single property, the additional ones can't be applied to other properties (hello?), which means other properties have to meet the full LVT liability. So the overall effect on total LVT liability of doubling up of UIEs by couples/families is roughly neutral.
> Or that other taxes would have to be increased if too much LVT revenue was lost to exemptions.They would also have to be increased to pay for the social costs associated with depriving the less productive of access to opportunity, or with distributing a CD. In any case, IMO the Single Tax is a pointless goal based on an erroneous belief that all taxes ultimately come out of land rent. I would be quite happy to see Pigovian taxes, taxes on other forms of privilege like IP monopolies and corporate limited liability, etc.
> As you say, double earner households have an existing advantage over singletons but is n't the exemption supposed to increase individual liberty?It does. People's exercise of their individual liberty regarding their domestic arrangements -- to marry, not marry, cohabit, not cohabit, have children, not have children, etc. -- should not be based on the tax consequences. The UIE ensures that they have equal, free access to enough good land to live on no matter what they choose in their domestic life.
> Exemptions per person not per property (cf. MIRAS in the UK)Which, as David is aware, I have already proved was not a per-person exemption.
> could make matters worse.Oh? For whom? How?
> 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!)You're going wrong on grade school algebra. It's (X-2UIE)/2, not X/2-2UIE.
> BTW I originally tried to find out how the UIE would work because it sounded like an intriguing idea .Patient inquiriesISTM the bulk of the relevant patience has been exercised on the responding side.
> Still no answers to basic questions.David appears to have forgotten that I have answered all comprehensible (which David's are not always) inquiries about the UIE in clear, simple, grammatical English.
> 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?Local tax area, as the need for a UIE applies to any LVT implementation, not just a national one, and IMO a standard of access to enough good land to live on is more appropriately defined locally than nationally. It means something different in NYC than in WY.
-- Roy Langston
- --- 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