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

RE: [LandCafe] Re: Detroit Land Grab

Expand Messages
  • David Reed
    @RL I am surprised you think the discourtesy comes from me e.g. If two or more UIE s are applied to a single property,the additional ones can t be applied to
    Message 1 of 395 , Sep 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      @RL
      I am surprised you think the discourtesy comes from me e.g."If two or more UIE's are applied to a single property,the additional ones can't be applied to other properties (hello?) which means other properties "(I thought it was persons)" have to meet the full LVT liability." You have been gratuitously rude in the act of perpetrating one of your most slipshod mistakes.When people multi-occupy they ,typically , do not leave other properties empty for singletons to move in.They multi occupy in areas of housing shortage (e.g places where there's work).Singletons don't occupy places the double-uppers leave vacant.Nowhere is left vacant and all the housing is really expensive.Singletons can't move there in the first place (or under LVT/UIE they can't afford the stiff LVT, which is applied to the property, with only one exemption, which is applied to the person.)
       
      As someone who believes that if you can't explain an economic relationship in words ,it probably does n't exist, your fabrication of algebraic depictions doesn't cut much ice. I would have thought it should be : I LVT- I UIE >  I LVT -2UIE.
       
      I was talking to krj .We were happy to use the term inflation to mean HPI (House price inflation) at least that's the way I was using it (we appeared to be using the old bugbear "rents" in different ways).Your constant refusal to talk about inflation because its an exclusively monetary concept does n't help (You could get house price inflation in a place which people flocked to because there was work or the promise of wealth when the monetary aggregates had n't increased in the entire monetary area.This is the principal most useful role for LVT IMO).
       
      Please do not invade the Mark Wadsworth site an area of calm and, up to a point ,reason.If you had read krj's reply to me re. MW ,you would have seen that he includes a CD with his LVT which krj considers an exemption ( I don't but you can see what krj means).
       
      Cannot see that it conduces to economic liberty for single people to make them pay twice the LVT for the same size property that doublers are occupying with twice the income (see algebra if that's what floats your boat).    
       

      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      From: roy_langston@...
      Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 18:50:39 +0000
      Subject: [LandCafe] 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 inquiries

      ISTM 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


    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.