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

Re: [LandCafe] The Road Ahead

Expand Messages
  • Dan Sullivan
    ... Most leveraged properties are improved and pay less under land value tax, but those that pay more are indeed a problem. So is the prospect of falling
    Message 1 of 14 , May 29, 2006
      On 28 May 2006 at 11:41, Mark Monson wrote:

      > If landlords were our only opposition we should have full LVT by
      > morning. Today, an incredibly huge sum of money equity has been
      > leveraged and releveraged as investments ultimately secured by the
      > theoretical sales value of land. To remove the relatively small
      > foundation stone of privately collected rent will destroy land's sales
      > value which will in turn cause the entire structure of finance to
      > collapse. This could be good or bad depending on the what laws are
      > set in place BEFORE implementation of LVT. Among these are laws that
      > define obligations of debtors to creditors and obligations of
      > governments to banks and savers.

      Most leveraged properties are improved and pay less under land value
      tax, but those that pay more are indeed a problem. So is the prospect
      of falling prices more frightening to some than the prospect of higher
      taxes per se.

      Underlying this is the problem that money is loaned into circulation.
      This is a core economic problem on a par with land monopoly. The
      result of lending money into circulation is that the ratio of debt to
      money continuously increases until there is no longer enough money
      to service the debt.

      Although Bank of England has been nationalized, it still lends money
      to the private banks instead of just giving money to the government to
      spend. Land reformers and monetary reformers should stop quibbling
      about which is the bigger issue and realize that this is not an either/or
      problem, but a both/and problem.

      -ds
    • Jock Coats
      ... I m glad you mentioned that Mark. I only began to understand LVT after I had had a bit of an introduction to monetary reform. And, as some will know, I
      Message 2 of 14 , May 29, 2006
        On 28 May 2006, at 17:41, Mark Monson wrote:

        > If landlords were our only opposition we should have full LVT by
        > morning. Today, an incredibly huge sum of money equity has been
        > leveraged and releveraged as investments ultimately secured by the
        > theoretical sales value of land. To remove the relatively small
        > foundation stone of privately collected rent will destroy land's sales
        > value which will in turn cause the entire structure of finance to
        > collapse. This could be good or bad depending on the what laws
        > are set
        > in place BEFORE implementation of LVT. Among these are laws that
        > define obligations of debtors to creditors and obligations of
        > governments to banks and savers.

        I'm glad you mentioned that Mark. I only began to understand LVT
        after I had had a bit of an introduction to monetary reform. And, as
        some will know, I believe these two to be inextricably linked twin
        pillars of economic justice and freedom. Indeed, that you cannot
        have the one without the other because of the way money is backed by
        land security.

        And if we do not understand or even willfully ignore this it would,
        as you say, be bad. Very bad. Just as land is a good base for
        taxation, it is a good base under that system for creating money - it
        doesn't need to be liquidated too often, and even if values fall they
        don't affect many people since your next home or premises is likely
        closely linked to the value of your current one. If bankers don't
        have land on which to secure lending what could they have - our
        pensions? Or worse - the unsecured, high rate, borrowing that's
        "enjoying" a boom now?

        So for the value we take out of land via our LVT we need to put that
        back in the form of "real" money which is why...

        > Stealthy, gradual implementation of LVT is wonderful in theory. And
        > although change is often gradual, this is only because both sides in
        > desperate struggle are evenly matched. To actually employ gradualism
        > as a political strategy is to guarantee failure.

        ...I too feel better with a "big bang" approach. I was impressed
        earlier in the year by a series of programs on the BBC entitled
        "Tory! Tory! Tory!" tracing the origins of Thatcher's rise to power
        on the back of a then radical shift in the economic system and how
        the IEA and the Freedom Association and Hayek and Friedman and so on
        actually did succeed in laying the groundwork for 1979 and after by
        educating the public up front of the need for that radical economic
        change. (As an aside I was particularly taken by their attempts to
        popularise economics - they had Gordon Jackson introducing a sort of
        musical comedy sketch with dancers singing "We'll count our blessings
        if we apply/tight control to our money supply"..:) And I don't see
        why the current orthodoxy can't be knocked off its perch
        intellectually in the same way as a prelude to political implementation.

        Perhaps PLRG needs to employ Salman Rushdie or someone to produce
        some catch-phrases?

        Jock

        --
        Jock Coats - Secretary, Lib Dems ALTER
        (Action for Land-value Taxation and Economic Reform)
        c/o Warden's Flat 1e, J Block Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
        m: +44 (0)7769 695767 e: jock.coats@...
        www: http://www.libdemsalter.org.uk - http://jockcoats.blogspot.com/
      • Chris Toto
        The best chance for widespread implementation of some geoist methods is to giddy up and ride the environmentalist movement with pollution user fees and
        Message 3 of 14 , May 29, 2006
          The best chance for widespread implementation of some geoist methods is to
          "giddy up" and ride the environmentalist movement with pollution user fees
          and severance fee rents. The E movement is the only broad based movement
          right now that has enough power and influence to cause real change. Some may
          rightly argue that it is a movement a mile wide and and inch deep, but it's
          the best around for now.

          Otherwise, local application of LVT and Two Rate Shifts usually face steep
          uphill battles without CD type exemption rebates for working class folk.
          Integrate a CD exemption for most middle class folk, who really are not the
          problem to begin with, then the reform becomes a "no-brainer" for most
          people that explodes all the smarmy excuse propaganda posed by the
          opposition.

          User friendly upgrades in favor of cost efficiency in public supported
          schools would also help ease many property tax concerns.

          Chris T.
        • Wetzel Dave
          I agree we need Money Reform but surely this particular problem only arises if we were to achieve a 100% LVT immediately? However, introducing LVT over say 12
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 1, 2006

            I agree we need Money Reform but surely this particular problem only arises if we were to achieve a 100% LVT immediately?

             

            However, introducing LVT over say 12 years (3 Parliaments in the UK) we could start at say, 10% of the annual value of land and increase gradually to say 40% over the 12 years.

             

            With reductions in the other taxes that currently fall on individuals and businesses giving a growth in trade, plus the resultant lower interest rates making loan repayments cheaper (in the UK the Bank of England would not need to continue to depress high “house” prices [actually high residential land prices] with higher interest rates than would otherwise be necessary), in these circumstances  I see no need for lenders to call-in their loans as the value of their collateral, land prices fall.

             

            However, even if there is a need for a transitional arrangement it should be only in cases of genuine hardship and might only affect 1% of borrowers who have borrowed at high prices on fixed interest repayments. In this case the Bank of England could be a guarantor for such loans so that the repayments continue to be made and there is no need for the lender to call in the loan because the price (not value) of the underlying asset has fallen.

             

            Dave

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jock Coats
            Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:58 PM
            To: Mark Monson; "Land Café ( lc1)"
            Subject: Re: [LandCafe] The Road Ahead

             

            On 28 May 2006, at 17:41, Mark Monson wrote:

            > If landlords were our only opposition we should have full LVT by
            > morning.    Today, an incredibly huge sum of money equity
            has been
            > leveraged and releveraged as investments ultimately secured by the
            > theoretical sales value of land.  To remove the relatively small
            > foundation stone of privately collected rent will destroy land's sales
            > value which will in turn cause the entire structure of finance to
            > collapse.   This could be good or bad depending on the what
            laws 
            > are set
            > in place BEFORE implementation of LVT.   Among these are laws
            that
            > define obligations of debtors to creditors and obligations of
            > governments to banks and savers.

            I'm glad you mentioned that Mark.  I only began to understand LVT 
            after I had had a bit of an introduction to monetary reform.  And, as 
            some will know, I believe these two to be inextricably linked twin 
            pillars of economic justice and freedom.  Indeed, that you cannot 
            have the one without the other because of the way money is backed by 
            land security.

            And if we do not understand or even willfully ignore this it would, 
            as you say, be bad.  Very bad.  Just as land is a good base for 
            taxation, it is a good base under that system for creating money - it 
            doesn't need to be liquidated too often, and even if values fall they 
            don't affect many people since your next home or premises is likely 
            closely linked to the value of your current one.  If bankers don't 
            have land on which to secure lending what could they have - our 
            pensions?  Or worse - the unsecured, high rate, borrowing that's 
            "enjoying" a boom now?

            So for the value we take out of land via our LVT we need to put that 
            back in the form of  "real" money which is why...

            > Stealthy, gradual implementation of LVT is wonderful in
            theory.   And
            > although change is often gradual, this is only because both sides in
            > desperate struggle are evenly matched.   To actually employ
            gradualism
            > as a political strategy is to guarantee failure.

            ...I too feel better with a "big bang" approach.  I was impressed 
            earlier in the year by a series of programs on the BBC entitled 
            "Tory! Tory! Tory!" tracing the origins of Thatcher's rise to power 
            on the back of a then radical shift in the economic system and how 
            the IEA and the Freedom Association and Hayek and Friedman and so on 
            actually did succeed in laying the groundwork for 1979 and after by 
            educating the public up front of the need for that radical economic 
            change.  (As an aside I was particularly taken by their attempts to 
            popularise economics - they had Gordon Jackson introducing a sort of 
            musical comedy sketch with dancers singing "We'll count our blessings 
            if we apply/tight control to our money supply"..:)  And I don't see 
            why the current orthodoxy can't be knocked off its perch 
            intellectually in the same way as a prelude to political implementation.

            Perhaps PLRG needs to employ Salman Rushdie or someone to produce 
            some catch-phrases?

            Jock

            --
            Jock Coats - Secretary, Lib Dems ALTER
            (Action for Land-value Taxation and Economic Reform)
            c/o Warden's Flat 1e, J Block Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
            m: +44 (0)7769 695767 e: jock.coats@...
            www: http://www.libdemsalter.org.uk - http://jockcoats.blogspot.com/









            ***********************************************************************************
            The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

            If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

            This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
            ***********************************************************************************

          • Jock Coats
            ... Well no. I don t think so. I think we re talking about two different things. ... Yes, we are. I m not talking about the effect on individuals as
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 1, 2006
              On 1 Jun 2006, at 16:18, Wetzel Dave wrote:
              > I agree we need Money Reform but surely this particular problem
              > only arises if we were to achieve a 100% LVT immediately?
              Well no. I don't think so. I think we're talking about two
              different things.
              > With reductions in the other taxes that currently fall on
              > individuals and businesses giving a growth in trade, plus the
              > resultant lower interest rates making loan repayments cheaper (in
              > the UK the Bank of England would not need to continue to depress
              > high “house” prices [actually high residential land prices] with
              > higher interest rates than would otherwise be necessary), in these
              > circumstances I see no need for lenders to call-in their loans as
              > the value of their collateral, land prices fall.
              Yes, we are. I'm not talking about the effect on individuals as
              borrowers, but on the amount of money in the system as a whole. As
              soon as we start to deflate, or even just prevent growth, in land
              values, then the debt based money supply, backed largely currently by
              mortgage lending, would begin to contract - if land was not worth as
              much or growing as fast, you won't lend so much money against it, and
              when borrowings are repaid they will not be replaced by higher
              borrowings than at the "peak" of the market.

              Now, I am quite sure that the banking system would just love to
              compensate for that by creating debt money less well secured, which
              of course it has been doing more and more for a couple of decades now
              (credit cards, pensions buy-backs, unsecured loans and all the other
              products of a "banked" population), we would not want that to take up
              the slack. So the state will have to start issuing new debt free
              money to monetise all the economic activity in the system.

              This is a good thing, of course. But awkward to sell (well counter-
              intuitive more than awkward).

              Jock

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On
              > Behalf Of Jock Coats
              > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:58 PM
              > To: Mark Monson; "Land Café ( lc1)"
              > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] The Road Ahead
              >
              >
              >
              > On 28 May 2006, at 17:41, Mark Monson wrote:
              >
              > > If landlords were our only opposition we should have full LVT by
              > > morning. Today, an incredibly huge sum of money equity has been
              > > leveraged and releveraged as investments ultimately secured by the
              > > theoretical sales value of land. To remove the relatively small
              > > foundation stone of privately collected rent will destroy land's
              > sales
              > > value which will in turn cause the entire structure of finance to
              > > collapse. This could be good or bad depending on the what laws
              > > are set
              > > in place BEFORE implementation of LVT. Among these are laws that
              > > define obligations of debtors to creditors and obligations of
              > > governments to banks and savers.
              >
              > I'm glad you mentioned that Mark. I only began to understand LVT
              > after I had had a bit of an introduction to monetary reform. And, as
              > some will know, I believe these two to be inextricably linked twin
              > pillars of economic justice and freedom. Indeed, that you cannot
              > have the one without the other because of the way money is backed by
              > land security.
              >
              > And if we do not understand or even willfully ignore this it would,
              > as you say, be bad. Very bad. Just as land is a good base for
              > taxation, it is a good base under that system for creating money - it
              > doesn't need to be liquidated too often, and even if values fall they
              > don't affect many people since your next home or premises is likely
              > closely linked to the value of your current one. If bankers don't
              > have land on which to secure lending what could they have - our
              > pensions? Or worse - the unsecured, high rate, borrowing that's
              > "enjoying" a boom now?
              >
              > So for the value we take out of land via our LVT we need to put that
              > back in the form of "real" money which is why...
              >
              > > Stealthy, gradual implementation of LVT is wonderful in theory.
              > And
              > > although change is often gradual, this is only because both sides in
              > > desperate struggle are evenly matched. To actually employ
              > gradualism
              > > as a political strategy is to guarantee failure.
              >
              > ...I too feel better with a "big bang" approach. I was impressed
              > earlier in the year by a series of programs on the BBC entitled
              > "Tory! Tory! Tory!" tracing the origins of Thatcher's rise to power
              > on the back of a then radical shift in the economic system and how
              > the IEA and the Freedom Association and Hayek and Friedman and so on
              > actually did succeed in laying the groundwork for 1979 and after by
              > educating the public up front of the need for that radical economic
              > change. (As an aside I was particularly taken by their attempts to
              > popularise economics - they had Gordon Jackson introducing a sort of
              > musical comedy sketch with dancers singing "We'll count our blessings
              > if we apply/tight control to our money supply"..:) And I don't see
              > why the current orthodoxy can't be knocked off its perch
              > intellectually in the same way as a prelude to political
              > implementation.
              >
              > Perhaps PLRG needs to employ Salman Rushdie or someone to produce
              > some catch-phrases?
              >
              > Jock
              >
              > --
              > Jock Coats - Secretary, Lib Dems ALTER
              > (Action for Land-value Taxation and Economic Reform)
              > c/o Warden's Flat 1e, J Block Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
              > m: +44 (0)7769 695767 e: jock.coats@...
              > www: http://www.libdemsalter.org.uk - http://jockcoats.blogspot.com/
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Check in here via the homepage at http://landcafe.org
              > To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
              > & please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
              > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
              >
              >
              >
              > SPONSORED LINKS
              >
              > Government tax auction
              >
              > Government tax lien
              >
              > Government tax lien certificate
              >
              > Land
              >
              > Tax
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              >
              >
              > § Visit your group "LandCafe" on the web.
              >
              >
              > § To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              > § Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
              > of Service.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > **********************************************************************
              > *************
              > The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are
              > confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
              > entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby
              > exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or
              > accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted
              > files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you
              > have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
              > forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
              >
              > If you have received this email in error please notify
              > postmaster@....
              >
              > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
              > for the presence of computer viruses.
              > **********************************************************************
              > *************

              --
              Jock Coats - Secretary, Lib Dems ALTER
              (Action for Land-value Taxation and Economic Reform)
              c/o Warden's Flat 1e, J Block Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
              m: +44 (0)7769 695767 e: jock.coats@...
              www: http://www.libdemsalter.org.uk - http://jockcoats.blogspot.com/
            • David Chester
              Dear Harry and Ed, You probably won t agree with me but the way ahead in our subject is by the better public understanding of the more general subject of
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 11, 2006

                Dear Harry and Ed,

                You probably won't agree with me but the way ahead in our subject is by the better public understanding of the more general subject of macroeconomics. This might be in the form of the introduction of macroeconomics as a "civics" subject, worthy of study at high-school.

                Macroeconomics at present is treated as part of the pseduo-science called Sociology (for those objecting to the expression "pseduo" please read "inexact"). The point being that our badly categorized subject is regarded as something for which that is nice to have a few trained workers working in, rather than it being a necessary qualification for good citizanship.

                The answer to this dilema as I see, it is to transform Macroeconomics into an exact science, with suitable tools for its easy and popular simulation. Although it might seem to be specialzed, macroeconomic changes within our society can be illustrated by working models (a mechanical one of which I am developing), so as to be capable of being understood by a larger proportion of the population. The fact that a change of current taxation to LVT as one of several "Good-Government" policy decisions, will inevitably follow when serious investigative research is done on this model (as I have discovered, and am attempting to cover in my writing). Its all horribly logical.

                Regards, David


                From:  "Harry Pollard" <goodsociety@...>
                Reply-To:  goodsociety@...
                To:  "Edward Dodson" <ejdodson@...>, "'David Chester'" <chesterdh@...>, LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                Subject:  Re: [LandCafe] The Road Ahead
                Date:  Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:19:31 -0700
                >
                >Very good and optimistic suggestions from someone who declars
                >himself a  pessimist!
                >
                >'Bettr to light a canle than curse the darkness!'
                >
                >Harry
                >-------------------------------------------------
                >
                >
                >
                >On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:47:41 -0700, Edward Dodson
                ><ejdodson@...>  wrote:
                >
                >>Ed Dodson responding...
                >>David Chester wrote:
                >>
                >>What I am looking for is a more sure and possibly very long-term
                >>solution that is certain to work even though it will almost
                >>certainly be necessary to continue it beyond my life span (and
                >>yours
                >>too).
                >>
                >>Ed here:
                >>Certainly, David, you have a great deal of company in this
                >>aspiration.  There
                >>are many reasons why the movement that grew around the person of
                >>Henry
                >>George lost momentum after his death. This has been much explored
                >>by both
                >>sympathetic and antagonistic writers. One of the great differences  
                >>between
                >>our era and that of Henry George is the proliferation of the  
                >>not-for-profit
                >>sector. Foundations and similar organizations have been established
                >>to
                >>advance almost every cause one can think of. Some (too many) come
                >>into
                >>existence as tax shelters thinly disguised, created to protect
                >>entrenched
                >>privilege rather than advance the common good. Thus, the Georgist
                >>organizations are competing with thousands of others. There is also
                >>the
                >>unexpected re-emergence of the "true believer" driven power of
                >>religious
                >>fundamentalism sweeping across the planet. Henry George certainly  
                >>understood
                >>the enormity of the challenge. In *Social Problems* (p.31), he
                >>wrote:
                >>
                >>"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too  
                >>degrading
                >>for acceptance when it has become embedded in common belief. Men
                >>will  submit
                >>themselves to tortures and to death, mothers will immolate their  
                >>children,
                >>at the bidding of beliefs they thus accept."
                >>
                >>At most, the global Georgist community consists of no more than a
                >>few
                >>thousand very strong proponents, a fraction of whom are regularly
                >>active  in
                >>some meaningful way. How to turn this around? Absent the emergence
                >>of
                >>someone with the character and personality and ability of Henry
                >>George,  I am
                >>of the opinion that two action steps would yield important
                >>long-term
                >>results.
                >>
                >>First is the establishment of a Georgist center, not merely for
                >>teaching
                >>Henry George courses, but where interdisciplinary research can be  
                >>fostered,
                >>and published. The center would hold regular conferences and
                >>include the
                >>facility for short- and long-term stays by participants,
                >>researchers,
                >>scholars, and others. One goal would be to establish a College of  
                >>Political
                >>Economy able to award undergraduate and graduate degrees. The
                >>Georgist
                >>center would be part of a mixed-use community, on land owned by the
                >>community and leased at market ground rents according to Georgist
                >>principles.
                >>
                >>Second is the creation of a world-class econometric forecasting  
                >>capability,
                >>testing the analytical superiority of the Georgist theories of the  
                >>business
                >>cycle in a manner that has not been possible to date, despite the
                >>very
                >>important efforts by Fred Harrison, Bryan Kavanagh, Phil Anderson,
                >>Nic
                >>Tideman and others. A Georgist model that is even marginally more  
                >>predictive
                >>of changes in the global, national and regional economies will do
                >>more to
                >>change the thinking of other economists, business executive and  
                >>government
                >>planners than anything else I can think of.
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>Check in here via the homepage at http://landcafe.org
                >>To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                >>& please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                >>(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                >>
                >>
                >>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                >>
                >>Visit your group "LandCafe" on the web.
                >>
                >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                >>LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >>
                >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                >>Service.
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >--
                >
                >***************
                >Harry Pollard
                >Box 655
                >Tujunga CA 91042
                >818 293-0220
                >***************
                >


                Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Download today it's FREE!
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.