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

Re: How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?

Expand Messages
  • Dave Wetzel
    Thanks to all for your advice. I m not trying to make a semantic point but genuinely respect your opinions in the Land Café and want to explore how I can
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 28, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks to all for your advice. I'm not trying to make a semantic point but genuinely respect your opinions in the Land Café and want to explore how I can neutralise the opposition expressed by most UK homeowners. (Also in Ireland as I witnessed on a TV show in Dublin on Monday) and puts the fear of God in politicians seeking votes.
      JDK writes: "It's a great start. You may be right JDK and I welcome your views. 
      The devil is always in the details. (For example, is 2m (total value - building plus land or 2m in land?)
      I wrote "except for occupied homes worth less than £2m" - Homes "worth less than £2m" normally implies the price one pays for a home = land and building.
      Very unusual to buy the bricks and mortar - without also purchasing the land.

      It may well be that LVT is a better deal for most homeowners than the council tax.
      This MAY be true - but will voters residing in a home risk supporting LVT on a possibility?
      Or are they far more likely to support LVT if it certainly does NOT apply to them unless they have 2 or more homes or their single home is worth (building and land)over £2m? (Even if they have tocontinue paying LVT).

      I suppose you take what you can reasonable get, but having actually rolls for all the parcels (broken down by land and building value) and then actually running the numbers would not be an unwise course. Agreed. A full register ofland ownership and annual land value is a must.

      I'm for anything (as a start) that taxes land more and labor less. I Agree - as a "START". This scheme would  disprove many of our critics -
      1. the ability and ease to value land in UK property tenure conditions with freeholds, leases, multiple  sub-leases etc.
      2. the appeals against valuation data would not be too onerous.
      3. the certainty of income.
      4. the low impact on tenants and the impossability of landlords to "pass the tax on".
      5. ????

      JDK

      PS. We met in Philadelphia, a while back. I'm attorney in Baltimore, I had created some land value maps of Balimore and Maryland for the conference. I put you down as in the handful of serious, sane georgists (land taxers) with political savy. I've not been to one of those conferences since then because notwithstanding good and well meaning intentions of everyone there - I find the crowd to be too on the fringe, naive or just plain looney.
      Thanks for the compliment but we all need to be serious about implementation and broadening LVT where we already have a small foothold. As I'm not a believer in GOD and find such references in P&P inappropriate (I don't buy a car-repair manual to read about a deity - so why should it be included in a world-repair manuel?) I can't call myself a Georgist - but I fervently believe that the economic rent of land and natural resources belongs to all.
      I love meeting up with others at CGO, TheIU etc. I have always found it refreshes my batteries and gives me fresh ideas and motivation to devote most of my waking time to the struggle! (Except when I'm picking slow horses to back!).
      I
      JDK

       

       Dave Wetzel


    • roy_langston
      ... If Dave Wetzel thinks he needs to defend himself or his views against anything I have said -- he doesn t -- he is well able to do so himself, without David
      Message 2 of 24 , Sep 28, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

        > So that's Dave Wetzel put in his place then: the founder of this site, hero of Fares Fair ,a Georgite scheme for the biggest transport system in the world (which was too successful!) and standard bearer for the British Left( and some Right and all the Centre) on LVT in influential circles.

        If Dave Wetzel thinks he needs to defend himself or his views against anything I have said -- he doesn't -- he is well able to do so himself, without David Reed's attempts to foment acrimony between us.

        > Not good enough because he's not pushing the UIE and now ,its afterthought, the RPE, which Roy Langston has hastily cobbled together (with no heed of expense)

        I have estimated the expense accurately enough for my own satisfaction -- roughly 1/4 of total LVT revenue in the first year (depending on how active the local market has been in recent years), declining to zero after 20 years -- and it is derisory compared to the expense of a permanent homestead exemption of 2M quid.

        > to compensate property owners, the same way, he admits, slaveowners in the British Empire were compensated for losing their "property"on the abolition of slavery.

        It's not the same way, but is proposed for similar reasons: to achieve liberty and justice faster and at lower total cost than inferior alternatives would permit.

        > You cannot accuse RL of not moving in the development of his gimcrack theory but it is glacially slow (and backwards).He added the RPE compensation package about a year ago (with no heed of expense ,as usual)

        IIRC, I first proposed something like it about five years ago. Sorry I didn't solve all problems of LVT implementation right from the outset. I'll try to do better.

        > but only stunned his supporter(s) a few weeks ago with the surprise announcement that all would get exemptions no matter how young and legally bound by their parents' overarching legal responsibility for their affairs.

        I have stated repeatedly for several years that the UIE must be extended to all resident citizens, young and old alike, landholder and tenant alike.

        > He has now finally admitted (see below) that UIE+RPE would double people's disposable incomes .

        "Finally admitted"? I have stated openly and proudly, many times, that the approximate doubling of TYPICAL people's disposable incomes (at the expense of greatly reducing the disposable incomes of big landowners, of course) is a positive benefit of LVT+UIE+RPE.

        > But ,he has said over and over in his arrogant repetitive way, that this amount of additional spending-power can never,ever induce inflation of property prices, which I questioned (tentatively in those days ) years ago.

        Yes, because it is spending power that is now in the hands of producers and consumers who have little interest in bidding up land prices, having been REMOVED from the hands of the big landowners and land speculators who could be expected to devote it to bidding up land prices.

        > But House Price Inflation (or in UK HPI) , which has had disastrous effects on economies around the world, is the wet fish across the kisser that should silence the propagation of UIE delusions.

        Nonsense. The UIE cannot significantly inflate house prices in a full LVT environment, as it is a fixed fraction of median per capita land value used. Higher land values just lead to higher LVT liabilities, and only a fraction of that higher liability flows through to the UIE.

        > As I have said before: if RL cannot convince any more people on landcafe of the merits of UIE,he should give up.

        "Never, never, never, never quit." -- Winston Churchill

        Oh, I suppose I might give up should David Reed ever be converted, as then I would know I must be wrong.

        -- Roy Langston
      • David Reed
        @Roy LangstonCut the crap and answer/ settle some questions (finally after all these years)i) Why if LVT-UIE ( and whatever other initials are currently stuck
        Message 3 of 24 , Sep 29, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          @Roy Langston
          Cut the crap and answer/ settle some questions (finally after all these years)
          i) Why if LVT-UIE ( and whatever other initials are currently stuck on the end) doubles disposable incomes,does n't Ricardo's Law apply ,so that property prices  rise equivalently as landowners/rent seekers and ordinary punters selling their houses absorb the short- lived increase in spending-power?
          ii)If property prices rise>the median rises>the LVT allowance rises>Ricardo's Law applies to increased allowances>so property prices go up further .Why is n't this a recipe for exponential house price inflation? (NB This sectoral inflation could lead to aggregate deflation.Your scheme will not add any money to the consumption/production cycle because of Ricardo.)
          iii )What are the time lapses involved? It could be that the intro of your scheme would briefly double disposable incomes> then Ricardo sets in > then people have to pay over the odds for property before another LVT revaluation takes place.How often are the revaluations ?
          iv) Why, on one hand ,do you boast, rejoice and ,whatever, in the doubling of disposable incomes consequent on the institution of allowances against LVT but then deny they have a cash value when your erstwhile supporter Walto says that allowance-owning children could become "cash cows"?  Allowances are readily translatable into cash.You have said so.This is what  disposable income means.
          v) You accuse me of fomenting acrimony.Is it not you that regularly foments trouble;you could start an argument in an empty room ,which is pretty much what landcafe has become? You take a swipe at Dave Wetzel below, in the midst of exonerating yourself from fomenting trouble, by adversely comparing his suggestions for a £2m exemption from LVT to  your new plan to compensate landowners on the same principle as slaveowners in the British Empire .In fact he stipulates that property below that figure should still pay Council Tax.There could be a constructive debate on this point but your contribution is not part of it. 
           

          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
          From: roy_langston@...
          Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:57:29 +0000
          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?

           
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

          > So that's Dave Wetzel put in his place then: the founder of this site, hero of Fares Fair ,a Georgite scheme for the biggest transport system in the world (which was too successful!) and standard bearer for the British Left( and some Right and all the Centre) on LVT in influential circles.

          If Dave Wetzel thinks he needs to defend himself or his views against anything I have said -- he doesn't -- he is well able to do so himself, without David Reed's attempts to foment acrimony between us.

          > Not good enough because he's not pushing the UIE and now ,its afterthought, the RPE, which Roy Langston has hastily cobbled together (with no heed of expense)

          I have estimated the expense accurately enough for my own satisfaction -- roughly 1/4 of total LVT revenue in the first year (depending on how active the local market has been in recent years), declining to zero after 20 years -- and it is derisory compared to the expense of a permanent homestead exemption of 2M quid.

          > to compensate property owners, the same way, he admits, slaveowners in the British Empire were compensated for losing their "property"on the abolition of slavery.

          It's not the same way, but is proposed for similar reasons: to achieve liberty and justice faster and at lower total cost than inferior alternatives would permit.

          > You cannot accuse RL of not moving in the development of his gimcrack theory but it is glacially slow (and backwards).He added the RPE compensation package about a year ago (with no heed of expense ,as usual)

          IIRC, I first proposed something like it about five years ago. Sorry I didn't solve all problems of LVT implementation right from the outset. I'll try to do better.

          > but only stunned his supporter(s) a few weeks ago with the surprise announcement that all would get exemptions no matter how young and legally bound by their parents' overarching legal responsibility for their affairs.

          I have stated repeatedly for several years that the UIE must be extended to all resident citizens, young and old alike, landholder and tenant alike.

          > He has now finally admitted (see below) that UIE+RPE would double people's disposable incomes .

          "Finally admitted"? I have stated openly and proudly, many times, that the approximate doubling of TYPICAL people's disposable incomes (at the expense of greatly reducing the disposable incomes of big landowners, of course) is a positive benefit of LVT+UIE+RPE.

          > But ,he has said over and over in his arrogant repetitive way, that this amount of additional spending-power can never,ever induce inflation of property prices, which I questioned (tentatively in those days ) years ago.

          Yes, because it is spending power that is now in the hands of producers and consumers who have little interest in bidding up land prices, having been REMOVED from the hands of the big landowners and land speculators who could be expected to devote it to bidding up land prices.

          > But House Price Inflation (or in UK HPI) , which has had disastrous effects on economies around the world, is the wet fish across the kisser that should silence the propagation of UIE delusions.

          Nonsense. The UIE cannot significantly inflate house prices in a full LVT environment, as it is a fixed fraction of median per capita land value used. Higher land values just lead to higher LVT liabilities, and only a fraction of that higher liability flows through to the UIE.

          > As I have said before: if RL cannot convince any more people on landcafe of the merits of UIE,he should give up.

          "Never, never, never, never quit." -- Winston Churchill

          Oh, I suppose I might give up should David Reed ever be converted, as then I would know I must be wrong.

          -- Roy Langston


        • roy_langston
          ... I have always answered sensible questions about LVT, UIE and RPE. i) Why if LVT-UIE ( and whatever other initials are currently stuck on the end) doubles
          Message 4 of 24 , Sep 29, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

            > @Roy LangstonCut the crap and answer/ settle some questions (finally after all these years)

            I have always answered sensible questions about LVT, UIE and RPE.

            i) Why if LVT-UIE ( and whatever other initials are currently stuck on the end) doubles disposable incomes,does n't Ricardo's Law apply ,so that property prices rise equivalently as landowners/rent seekers and ordinary punters selling their houses absorb the short- lived increase in spending-power?

            Ricardo's law states that land rent is equal to the DIFFERENCE in production between advantageous and marginal land. The UIE doesn't change that. There is not a literal doubling of everyone's income. It's just that overall, if you are not a big landowner, you could expect a rough doubling of your disposable income. If you are currently landless, it would be a tripling.

            ii)If property prices rise>the median rises>the LVT allowance rises>Ricardo's Law applies to increased allowances>so property prices go up further .Why is n't this a recipe for exponential house price inflation?

            It damps out to a geometric sum, like 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + etc.

            > (NB This sectoral inflation could lead to aggregate deflation.Your scheme will not add any money to the consumption/production cycle because of Ricardo.)

            I've stated many times that the money supply has to be increased to prevent deflation under LVT, with or without UIE and RPE. Money creation should be taken out of the hands of private banksters anyway.

            > iii )What are the time lapses involved? It could be that the intro of your scheme would briefly double disposable incomes> then Ricardo sets in > then people have to pay over the odds for property before another LVT revaluation takes place.

            That is fanciful, as explained above.

            > How often are the revaluations ?

            I would revalue annually.

            > iv) Why, on one hand ,do you boast, rejoice and ,whatever, in the doubling of disposable incomes consequent on the institution of allowances against LVT but then deny they have a cash value when your erstwhile supporter Walto says that allowance-owning children could become "cash cows"?

            UIEs have some cash value, but that does not mean children would be "cash cows."

            > Allowances are readily translatable into cash.You have said so.This is what disposable income means.

            No. It would not be easy to convert a UIE to cash, and the opportunities to do so would likely be very limited.

            > v) You accuse me of fomenting acrimony.Is it not you that regularly foments trouble;

            No.

            > you could start an argument in an empty room ,which is pretty much what landcafe has become?

            The traffic indicates otherwise.

            > You take a swipe at Dave Wetzel below, in the midst of exonerating yourself from fomenting trouble, by adversely comparing his suggestions for a £2m exemption from LVT to your new plan to compensate landowners on the same principle as slaveowners in the British Empire .

            Please explain how it is the same principle.

            > In fact he stipulates that property below that figure should still pay Council Tax.

            Which should be abolished, as it falls mainly on improvements.

            > There could be a constructive debate on this point but your contribution is not part of it.

            I await your initial contribution to that constructive debate.

            -- Roy Langston
          • David Reed
            @ Roy LangstonMany thanks for your fairly definitive (of your position) replies. i)Ricardo s Law originally states ,as of 1821,: Rent is that portion of the
            Message 5 of 24 , Sep 30, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              @ Roy Langston
              Many thanks for your fairly definitive (of your position) replies.
               i)Ricardo's Law originally states ,as of 1821,: "Rent is that portion of the produce of the earth,which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil." So straightaway you get a problem:he is referring to the inherent soil chemistry and microbiology that produce fertility not value determined by location measured in comparative distances. His followers have not observed this distinction and have made over Ricardo's theory into one based on distance (by a process of metaphor or metonymy) so that ,for instance the value of pitches for selling newspapers on the street are supposed to create rent which vary with distance from railway stations and places where people converge in large numbers.
              So I am using the term in a looser sense in the way Henry George transmuted Ricardo's original formulation in P& P Chap 11 " The law of rent then will be the law or relation that determines what rent or price an owner can get under free competiion.( I have also grown used to the usage standard on sites like Mark Wadworth'sSee his blog "Ricardo's Law of rent again" 13 Apr 2012 " Local wages vary alot around the country ,but basic living costs don't,so in areas with higher local wages,there is more of a surplus after paying for basic living costs .And who gets the surplus? The landlord")
               So I am following George and modern usage in saying that landlords will  soak up any increase in disposable income that becomes available.This use may offend the pedant but Ricardo is not useable otherwise.
              In your scheme the doubling of disposable incomes will be absorbed into higher rents and prices by the landlords.
              ii) By how much is the question.Your sequence of fractions for  house price inflation does not pan out.With the feedback mechanism of rises in the per capita LVT allowance aka UIE, the sequence of figures is more likely to be (using your chosen numerical intervals)
              1 +.5 = 1.5; 1.5+.75= 2.25 ;2.25+ 1.125= 3.375 and so on.         
               I agree totally with what you say about the banksters control of credit (Time for a stiff coffee!)That is why I say you can save alot of bother taxing or recycling  "ground rent "by instead issuing new money by the Gov paying for infrastructure and public sector wages with unsupported cheques;National Dividends aimed at equalising spending power with productive potential etc.The LVT would work simply to prevent inflation which seems to show up first in real estate.   
              iii) Under LVT/UIE PLUS (all the family)the kids are going to have cash value;there's no getting away from it.
              iv)Council Tax does not fall" mainly on improvements": it falls on total selling prices.But I agree with you,it should be abolished.(And now I've run out of coffee) Dave W is trying to finesse the present political situation in the UK where Homeownerist parties and clients reign supreme.I support him in this but Council Tax will need major changes itself : it has n't been revalued since the 1990's and need two or three extra bands at the top bridging the gap between the current maximum and £2m. 

              To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
              From: roy_langston@...
              Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:01:58 +0000
              Subject: [LandCafe] Re: How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?

               
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

              > @Roy LangstonCut the crap and answer/ settle some questions (finally after all these years)

              I have always answered sensible questions about LVT, UIE and RPE.

              i) Why if LVT-UIE ( and whatever other initials are currently stuck on the end) doubles disposable incomes,does n't Ricardo's Law apply ,so that property prices rise equivalently as landowners/rent seekers and ordinary punters selling their houses absorb the short- lived increase in spending-power?

              Ricardo's law states that land rent is equal to the DIFFERENCE in production between advantageous and marginal land. The UIE doesn't change that. There is not a literal doubling of everyone's income. It's just that overall, if you are not a big landowner, you could expect a rough doubling of your disposable income. If you are currently landless, it would be a tripling.

              ii)If property prices rise>the median rises>the LVT allowance rises>Ricardo's Law applies to increased allowances>so property prices go up further .Why is n't this a recipe for exponential house price inflation?

              It damps out to a geometric sum, like 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + etc.

              > (NB This sectoral inflation could lead to aggregate deflation.Your scheme will not add any money to the consumption/production cycle because of Ricardo.)

              I've stated many times that the money supply has to be increased to prevent deflation under LVT, with or without UIE and RPE. Money creation should be taken out of the hands of private banksters anyway.

              > iii )What are the time lapses involved? It could be that the intro of your scheme would briefly double disposable incomes> then Ricardo sets in > then people have to pay over the odds for property before another LVT revaluation takes place.

              That is fanciful, as explained above.

              > How often are the revaluations ?

              I would revalue annually.

              > iv) Why, on one hand ,do you boast, rejoice and ,whatever, in the doubling of disposable incomes consequent on the institution of allowances against LVT but then deny they have a cash value when your erstwhile supporter Walto says that allowance-owning children could become "cash cows"?

              UIEs have some cash value, but that does not mean children would be "cash cows."

              > Allowances are readily translatable into cash.You have said so.This is what disposable income means.

              No. It would not be easy to convert a UIE to cash, and the opportunities to do so would likely be very limited.

              > v) You accuse me of fomenting acrimony.Is it not you that regularly foments trouble;

              No.

              > you could start an argument in an empty room ,which is pretty much what landcafe has become?

              The traffic indicates otherwise.

              > You take a swipe at Dave Wetzel below, in the midst of exonerating yourself from fomenting trouble, by adversely comparing his suggestions for a £2m exemption from LVT to your new plan to compensate landowners on the same principle as slaveowners in the British Empire .

              Please explain how it is the same principle.

              > In fact he stipulates that property below that figure should still pay Council Tax.

              Which should be abolished, as it falls mainly on improvements.

              > There could be a constructive debate on this point but your contribution is not part of it.

              I await your initial contribution to that constructive debate.

              -- Roy Langston


            • k_r_johansen
              ... So either way, both an inflationary dividend or an per-capita UIE/CD will increase land-rents, it will *not* lead to land-price inflation, LVT will capture
              Message 6 of 24 , Sep 30, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                >
                > In your scheme the doubling of disposable incomes will be absorbed into higher rents and prices by the landlords.ii) By how much is the question.Your sequence of fractions for house price inflation does not pan out.With the feedback mechanism of rises in the per capita LVT allowance aka UIE, the sequence of figures is more likely to be (using your chosen numerical intervals)1 +.5 = 1.5; 1.5+.75= 2.25 ;2.25+ 1.125= 3.375 and so on.I agree totally with what you say about the banksters control of credit (Time for a stiff coffee!)That is why I say you can save alot of bother taxing or recycling "ground rent "by instead issuing new money by the Gov paying for infrastructure and public sector wages with unsupported cheques;National Dividends aimed at equalising spending power with productive potential etc.The LVT would work simply to prevent inflation which seems to show up first in real estate.<

                So either way, both an inflationary dividend or an per-capita UIE/CD will increase land-rents, it will *not* lead to land-price inflation, LVT will capture that, even your JS Mill tax will. So why is the latter a bother and the former better...?

                Kj

                iii) Under LVT/UIE PLUS (all the family)the kids are going to have cash value;there's no getting away from it.iv)Council Tax does not fall" mainly on improvements": it falls on total selling prices.But I agree with you,it should be abolished.(And now I've run out of coffee) Dave W is trying to finesse the present political situation in the UK where Homeownerist parties and clients reign supreme.I support him in this but Council Tax will need major changes itself : it has n't been revalued since the 1990's and need two or three extra bands at the top bridging the gap between the current maximum and £2m. To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                > From: roy_langston@...
                > Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:01:58 +0000
                > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > > @Roy LangstonCut the crap and answer/ settle some questions (finally after all these years)
                >
                >
                >
                > I have always answered sensible questions about LVT, UIE and RPE.
                >
                >
                >
                > i) Why if LVT-UIE ( and whatever other initials are currently stuck on the end) doubles disposable incomes,does n't Ricardo's Law apply ,so that property prices rise equivalently as landowners/rent seekers and ordinary punters selling their houses absorb the short- lived increase in spending-power?
                >
                >
                >
                > Ricardo's law states that land rent is equal to the DIFFERENCE in production between advantageous and marginal land. The UIE doesn't change that. There is not a literal doubling of everyone's income. It's just that overall, if you are not a big landowner, you could expect a rough doubling of your disposable income. If you are currently landless, it would be a tripling.
                >
                >
                >
                > ii)If property prices rise>the median rises>the LVT allowance rises>Ricardo's Law applies to increased allowances>so property prices go up further .Why is n't this a recipe for exponential house price inflation?
                >
                >
                >
                > It damps out to a geometric sum, like 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + etc.
                >
                >
                >
                > > (NB This sectoral inflation could lead to aggregate deflation.Your scheme will not add any money to the consumption/production cycle because of Ricardo.)
                >
                >
                >
                > I've stated many times that the money supply has to be increased to prevent deflation under LVT, with or without UIE and RPE. Money creation should be taken out of the hands of private banksters anyway.
                >
                >
                >
                > > iii )What are the time lapses involved? It could be that the intro of your scheme would briefly double disposable incomes> then Ricardo sets in > then people have to pay over the odds for property before another LVT revaluation takes place.
                >
                >
                >
                > That is fanciful, as explained above.
                >
                >
                >
                > > How often are the revaluations ?
                >
                >
                >
                > I would revalue annually.
                >
                >
                >
                > > iv) Why, on one hand ,do you boast, rejoice and ,whatever, in the doubling of disposable incomes consequent on the institution of allowances against LVT but then deny they have a cash value when your erstwhile supporter Walto says that allowance-owning children could become "cash cows"?
                >
                >
                >
                > UIEs have some cash value, but that does not mean children would be "cash cows."
                >
                >
                >
                > > Allowances are readily translatable into cash.You have said so.This is what disposable income means.
                >
                >
                >
                > No. It would not be easy to convert a UIE to cash, and the opportunities to do so would likely be very limited.
                >
                >
                >
                > > v) You accuse me of fomenting acrimony.Is it not you that regularly foments trouble;
                >
                >
                >
                > No.
                >
                >
                >
                > > you could start an argument in an empty room ,which is pretty much what landcafe has become?
                >
                >
                >
                > The traffic indicates otherwise.
                >
                >
                >
                > > You take a swipe at Dave Wetzel below, in the midst of exonerating yourself from fomenting trouble, by adversely comparing his suggestions for a £2m exemption from LVT to your new plan to compensate landowners on the same principle as slaveowners in the British Empire .
                >
                >
                >
                > Please explain how it is the same principle.
                >
                >
                >
                > > In fact he stipulates that property below that figure should still pay Council Tax.
                >
                >
                >
                > Which should be abolished, as it falls mainly on improvements.
                >
                >
                >
                > > There could be a constructive debate on this point but your contribution is not part of it.
                >
                >
                >
                > I await your initial contribution to that constructive debate.
                >
                >
                >
                > -- Roy Langston
                >
              • roy_langston
                ... No, I do not have a problem, either straightaway or at any other time, other than my unfortunate and painful habit of beating my head against certain
                Message 7 of 24 , Sep 30, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                  > @ Roy LangstonMany thanks for your fairly definitive (of your position) replies. i)Ricardo's Law originally states ,as of 1821,: "Rent is that portion of the produce of the earth,which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil." So straightaway you get a problem:he is referring to the inherent soil chemistry and microbiology that produce fertility not value determined by location measured in comparative distances.

                  No, I do not have a problem, either straightaway or at any other time, other than my unfortunate and painful habit of beating my head against certain intellectual brick walls who shall remain mercifully nameless.

                  You, however, DO have a problem understanding what Ricardo wrote, as well as what the law named for him says. The quote above is not a statement of the Law of Rent but of Ricardo's classical economic DEFINITION of rent. Moreover, neither the definition nor the Law of Rent is restricted to agricultural uses of land, whatever Ricardo's choice of language (based in his physiocratic and Georgian -- in the British historical sense -- intellectual milieu) might have implied, or what certain (deliberately?) over-literate misinterpreters of his insights like to claim.

                  > His followers have not observed this distinction

                  Because it is based on a narrow and over-literate misinterpretation of Ricardo's arguments that incorrectly restricts his insights to an agricultural paradigm that was absolutely dominant in the economy of his day, but is no longer particularly relevant.

                  > and have made over Ricardo's theory into one based on distance (by a process of metaphor or metonymy)

                  No, that is the von Thunen theory.

                  > so that ,for instance the value of pitches for selling newspapers on the street are supposed to create rent which vary with distance from railway stations and places where people converge in large numbers.

                  Which they do.

                  > So I am using the term in a looser

                  I.e., inaccurate

                  > sense in the way Henry George transmuted Ricardo's original formulation in P& P Chap 11 " The law of rent then will be the law or relation that determines what rent or price an owner can get under free competiion.( I have also grown used to the usage standard on sites like Mark Wadworth'sSee his blog "Ricardo's Law of rent again" 13 Apr 2012 " Local wages vary alot around the country ,but basic living costs don't,so in areas with higher local wages,there is more of a surplus after paying for basic living costs .And who gets the surplus? The landlord") So I am following George and modern usage in saying that landlords will soak up any increase in disposable income that becomes available.

                  Wrong. You are misapprehending both Ricardo and Wadsworth, as well as the facts of economics. What enables landlords to charge higher rents where wages are high is not some magical power of appropriating disposable income, but simply the Law of Rent, which determines the rental value of the locational advantage of access to more lucrative employment opportunities. The UIE increases most people's disposable income (not big landowners', of course), but confers no such locational advantage -- it's the same everywhere -- and so does not increase rents (other than incidentally, by making the whole economy more productive) and thus cannot be appropriated via increased rents.

                  > This use may offend the pedant but Ricardo is not useable otherwise.

                  False. Ricardo is perfectly usable if one can only find a willingness to let go of dogmatic, over-literate misinterpretations of his words in their historical context.

                  > In your scheme the doubling of disposable incomes will be absorbed into higher rents and prices by the landlords.

                  False, and unsupported by economic fact or reasoning.

                  > ii) By how much is the question.Your sequence of fractions for house price inflation does not pan out.With the feedback mechanism of rises in the per capita LVT allowance aka UIE, the sequence of figures is more likely to be (using your chosen numerical intervals)1 +.5 = 1.5; 1.5+.75= 2.25 ;2.25+ 1.125= 3.375 and so on.

                  I am unable rightly to apprehend the sort of confusion of ideas that could lead to such a gross misinterpretation of exponential approach to an asymptote.

                  > I agree totally with what you say about the banksters control of credit (Time for a stiff coffee!)That is why I say you can save alot of bother taxing or recycling "ground rent "by instead issuing new money by the Gov paying for infrastructure and public sector wages with unsupported cheques;

                  Drawn on what accounts? And in the absence of radical monetary reform, prevented from stimulating massive creation of debt money by private banksters how?

                  > National Dividends aimed at equalising spending power with productive potential etc.

                  That is a recipe for inflation, as production will never match productive potential. To work justly and efficiently, money issuance must be effected by an independent government authority whose sole mandate is price stability.

                  > The LVT would work simply to prevent inflation which seems to show up first in real estate.

                  It shows up there first NOW because the money is created through lending for real estate purchases. Under LVT, lending for real estate would decline precipitously, but excessive money creation would just produce inflation through lending for something else.

                  > iii) Under LVT/UIE PLUS (all the family)the kids are going to have cash value;there's no getting away from it.

                  Only inasmuch as they already do under the UIE from income tax -- and as they should, if we are serious about equal human rights and just compensation for their abrogation.

                  > iv)Council Tax does not fall" mainly on improvements": it falls on total selling prices.

                  No. It falls mainly on improvements because of how and when the assessments are done: almost every new house's price is dominated by improvement value, while the soaring land values of older, fully depreciated properties go unassessed and thus untaxed.

                  > Dave W is trying to finesse the present political situation in the UK where Homeownerist parties and clients reign supreme.

                  Then why wouldn't he jump at the chance to show ordinary homeowners how the justice of LVT+UIE would work in their favor?

                  > I support him in this but Council Tax will need major changes itself : it has n't been revalued since the 1990's and need two or three extra bands at the top bridging the gap between the current maximum and £2m.

                  It needs to be abolished.

                  -- Roy Langston
                • David Reed
                  @Roy LangstonI m afraid a lot of this does n t make sense .i)How can my approach be over-literate ?Do you mean over-literal?Perhaps not, because when I take a
                  Message 8 of 24 , Oct 1, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    @Roy Langston
                    I'm afraid a lot of this does n't make sense .
                    i)How can my approach be "over-literate"?Do you mean over-literal?Perhaps not, because when I take a less pedantic view of Ricardo ,you accuse me of being " inaccurate". Your attitude would appear to be in your next thrash-about paragraph : Ricardo means whatever I think he means at the time,never mind what he said, which only the "over-literate" bother about .
                     
                    ii) A reasonable person would have disproved with alternative figures my numerical sequence showing a UIE prompted growth in house prices .You use pretentious ,possibly "over literate" bluster.
                     
                    iii)Your latest position on Walto's children as  cash cows is that it is the same with Income Tax and therefore a good thing.Hmm.
                     
                    More importantly you don't appear to understand monetary alternatives (such as Social Credit's  National Dividends) to recyclying ground rent.This is odd because you are singularly well-placed in BC which had a Social Credit Provincial government until the 1970's under Wacky Bennett.This could not get round the constitutional prohibition of State owned banks in Canada as a whole, but came up with some fairly startling and successful State owned corporations.Next door in Alberta ,there was the more orthodox Social Credit government of Bible Bill Aberhart in the 1930's onwards.You declare that National Dividends presuppose" money issuance effected by an independent government authority".This is precisely what the Social Crediters thought.The Alberta Treasury Branches, which exist to this day, were Aberhart's attempt  to set up a State owned bank.Farther East ,Saskatchewan came up with the  first North American  National Health Service which Michael Moore highlighted in Sicko.
                    I wonder you do not research West Canada's successful projects in escaping Bank Control rather than insisting on re-inventing the wheel using American ideology.You refuse to know the distinctively Canadian tradition of political radicalism.
                     iv As usual with the UK Situation you don't know what you are talking about.Land value is a huge proportion of house prices everywhere.Abolish Council Tax and we've got nothing to" build on".You could propose  extending and updating this tax ,then converting the assessment to one based on land values.But you don't.  
                    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                    From: roy_langston@...
                    Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 04:24:19 +0000
                    Subject: [LandCafe] Re: How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?

                     
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                    > @ Roy LangstonMany thanks for your fairly definitive (of your position) replies. i)Ricardo's Law originally states ,as of 1821,: "Rent is that portion of the produce of the earth,which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil." So straightaway you get a problem:he is referring to the inherent soil chemistry and microbiology that produce fertility not value determined by location measured in comparative distances.

                    No, I do not have a problem, either straightaway or at any other time, other than my unfortunate and painful habit of beating my head against certain intellectual brick walls who shall remain mercifully nameless.

                    You, however, DO have a problem understanding what Ricardo wrote, as well as what the law named for him says. The quote above is not a statement of the Law of Rent but of Ricardo's classical economic DEFINITION of rent. Moreover, neither the definition nor the Law of Rent is restricted to agricultural uses of land, whatever Ricardo's choice of language (based in his physiocratic and Georgian -- in the British historical sense -- intellectual milieu) might have implied, or what certain (deliberately?) over-literate misinterpreters of his insights like to claim.

                    > His followers have not observed this distinction

                    Because it is based on a narrow and over-literate misinterpretation of Ricardo's arguments that incorrectly restricts his insights to an agricultural paradigm that was absolutely dominant in the economy of his day, but is no longer particularly relevant.

                    > and have made over Ricardo's theory into one based on distance (by a process of metaphor or metonymy)

                    No, that is the von Thunen theory.

                    > so that ,for instance the value of pitches for selling newspapers on the street are supposed to create rent which vary with distance from railway stations and places where people converge in large numbers.

                    Which they do.

                    > So I am using the term in a looser

                    I.e., inaccurate

                    > sense in the way Henry George transmuted Ricardo's original formulation in P& P Chap 11 " The law of rent then will be the law or relation that determines what rent or price an owner can get under free competiion.( I have also grown used to the usage standard on sites like Mark Wadworth'sSee his blog "Ricardo's Law of rent again" 13 Apr 2012 " Local wages vary alot around the country ,but basic living costs don't,so in areas with higher local wages,there is more of a surplus after paying for basic living costs .And who gets the surplus? The landlord") So I am following George and modern usage in saying that landlords will soak up any increase in disposable income that becomes available.

                    Wrong. You are misapprehending both Ricardo and Wadsworth, as well as the facts of economics. What enables landlords to charge higher rents where wages are high is not some magical power of appropriating disposable income, but simply the Law of Rent, which determines the rental value of the locational advantage of access to more lucrative employment opportunities. The UIE increases most people's disposable income (not big landowners', of course), but confers no such locational advantage -- it's the same everywhere -- and so does not increase rents (other than incidentally, by making the whole economy more productive) and thus cannot be appropriated via increased rents.

                    > This use may offend the pedant but Ricardo is not useable otherwise.

                    False. Ricardo is perfectly usable if one can only find a willingness to let go of dogmatic, over-literate misinterpretations of his words in their historical context.

                    > In your scheme the doubling of disposable incomes will be absorbed into higher rents and prices by the landlords.

                    False, and unsupported by economic fact or reasoning.

                    > ii) By how much is the question.Your sequence of fractions for house price inflation does not pan out.With the feedback mechanism of rises in the per capita LVT allowance aka UIE, the sequence of figures is more likely to be (using your chosen numerical intervals)1 +.5 = 1.5; 1.5+.75= 2.25 ;2.25+ 1.125= 3.375 and so on.

                    I am unable rightly to apprehend the sort of confusion of ideas that could lead to such a gross misinterpretation of exponential approach to an asymptote.

                    > I agree totally with what you say about the banksters control of credit (Time for a stiff coffee!)That is why I say you can save alot of bother taxing or recycling "ground rent "by instead issuing new money by the Gov paying for infrastructure and public sector wages with unsupported cheques;

                    Drawn on what accounts? And in the absence of radical monetary reform, prevented from stimulating massive creation of debt money by private banksters how?

                    > National Dividends aimed at equalising spending power with productive potential etc.

                    That is a recipe for inflation, as production will never match productive potential. To work justly and efficiently, money issuance must be effected by an independent government authority whose sole mandate is price stability.

                    > The LVT would work simply to prevent inflation which seems to show up first in real estate.

                    It shows up there first NOW because the money is created through lending for real estate purchases. Under LVT, lending for real estate would decline precipitously, but excessive money creation would just produce inflation through lending for something else.

                    > iii) Under LVT/UIE PLUS (all the family)the kids are going to have cash value;there's no getting away from it.

                    Only inasmuch as they already do under the UIE from income tax -- and as they should, if we are serious about equal human rights and just compensation for their abrogation.

                    > iv)Council Tax does not fall" mainly on improvements": it falls on total selling prices.

                    No. It falls mainly on improvements because of how and when the assessments are done: almost every new house's price is dominated by improvement value, while the soaring land values of older, fully depreciated properties go unassessed and thus untaxed.

                    > Dave W is trying to finesse the present political situation in the UK where Homeownerist parties and clients reign supreme.

                    Then why wouldn't he jump at the chance to show ordinary homeowners how the justice of LVT+UIE would work in their favor?

                    > I support him in this but Council Tax will need major changes itself : it has n't been revalued since the 1990's and need two or three extra bands at the top bridging the gap between the current maximum and £2m.

                    It needs to be abolished.

                    -- Roy Langston


                  • roy_langston
                    ... True, as I didn t write a lot of it. ... Yes. My mistake. ... Actually, the problem is in your imagining, Derrida-like, that what Ricardo said is relevant
                    Message 9 of 24 , Oct 1, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                      > @Roy LangstonI'm afraid a lot of this does n't make sense .

                      True, as I didn't write a lot of it.

                      >i)How can my approach be "over-literate"?Do you mean over-literal?

                      Yes. My mistake.

                      > Perhaps not, because when I take a less pedantic view of Ricardo ,you accuse me of being " inaccurate". Your attitude would appear to be in your next thrash-about paragraph : Ricardo means whatever I think he means at the time,never mind what he said, which only the "over-literate" bother about .

                      Actually, the problem is in your imagining, Derrida-like, that what Ricardo said is relevant in any way. You appear to share Derrida's view that there is no reality that texts are about, only the texts themselves.

                      But just as Newton did not govern the physical universe with his words and symbols describing physical interactions, Ricardo did not govern economic relationships by describing them. His words identified some relevant facts, but the words did not create the facts. The facts are what matter, not the words used to identify and describe them. You don't seem to be very clear on this.

                      > ii) A reasonable person would have disproved with alternative figures my numerical sequence showing a UIE prompted growth in house prices .

                      Your numerical sequence showed no such thing, because it ignored the requirement of an underlying difference in economic advantage.

                      > You use pretentious ,possibly "over literate" bluster.

                      I like to get some enjoyment out of what would otherwise be a regal pain in the labonza.

                      > iii)Your latest position on Walto's children as cash cows is that it is the same with Income Tax and therefore a good thing.Hmm.

                      As you know, I made no such claim. I simply pointed out that the existing system of universal individual income tax exemptions is prima facie proof that even if the "arguments" so far offered against the U in the UIE from LVT had any merit (they don't), the universality of individual income tax exemptions proves there are strong, practical, economic and political reasons for universality.

                      > More importantly you don't appear to understand monetary alternatives (such as Social Credit's National Dividends) to recyclying ground rent.

                      I understand them far better than you, as I prove every time the subject comes up.

                      > This is odd because you are singularly well-placed in BC which had a Social Credit Provincial government until the 1970's under Wacky Bennett.

                      You are of course unaware that the Bennett government was Social Credit in name only, and was actually a coalition of right-wing Liberals and Conservatives who joined forces under the Social Credit banner to prevent the leftist CCF (later NDP) from forming a government.

                      > This could not get round the constitutional prohibition of State owned banks in Canada as a whole, but came up with some fairly startling and successful State owned corporations.Next door in Alberta ,there was the more orthodox Social Credit government of Bible Bill Aberhart in the 1930's onwards.You declare that National Dividends presuppose" money issuance effected by an independent government authority".

                      No, I simply warn against issuing money by any other means.

                      > This is precisely what the Social Crediters thought.The Alberta Treasury Branches, which exist to this day, were Aberhart's attempt to set up a State owned bank.Farther East ,Saskatchewan came up with the first North American National Health Service which Michael Moore highlighted in Sicko.I wonder you do not research West Canada's successful projects in escaping Bank Control rather than insisting on re-inventing the wheel using American ideology.

                      I wonder that you imagine any of the above paragraph is relevant or constructive.

                      > iv As usual with the UK Situation you don't know what you are talking about.

                      Says the woefully underinformed Brit who just presumed to lecture me about Western Canadian political history....

                      > Land value is a huge proportion of house prices everywhere.

                      No, it isn't. There are many places where land value is so low that house prices are effectively all improvement value.

                      > Abolish Council Tax and we've got nothing to" build on".

                      You haven't anyway, as Council Tax is nothing to build on.

                      > You could propose extending and updating this tax ,then converting the assessment to one based on land values.But you don't.

                      Because it's too big a mess, and you end up having to defend all the flaws of "Council Tax." Better to start fresh.

                      -- Roy Langston
                    • walto
                      ... That, my friend, is an argument from (a particularly bad) authority--coming from one who would like to blow up the current tax code. It also uses proves
                      Message 10 of 24 , Oct 2, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > As you know, I made no such claim. I simply pointed out that the existing system of universal individual income tax exemptions is prima facie proof that even if the "arguments" so far offered against the U in the UIE from LVT had any merit (they don't), the universality of individual income tax exemptions proves there are strong, practical, economic and political reasons for universality.
                        >

                        That, my friend, is an argument from (a particularly bad) authority--coming from one who would like to blow up the current tax code. It also uses "proves" incorrectly. "Provides some evidence for" only means "proves" in Langstonese.


                        > > More importantly you don't appear to understand monetary alternatives (such as Social Credit's National Dividends) to recyclying ground rent.
                        >
                        > I understand them far better than you, as I prove every time the subject comes up.
                        >

                        And that, is a (typical) argument from arrogance, one which completely "proves" the falsity of the last sentence in your previous post.

                        W
                      • David Reed
                        I haven t seen any proof that you understand Social Credit s National Dividends better than I do .And you certainly don t know anything about British house
                        Message 11 of 24 , Oct 2, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I haven't seen any proof that you understand Social Credit's National Dividends better than I do .And you certainly don't know anything about British house prices. There is more to proof than irritable one-liners: you have to amass evidence in the way of facts and figures, quotes, instances and worked examples.Just for starters.
                          In the latter instance of British house prices, I would refer you to the current blog-site of Tim Worstall ,an English right-wing minarchist who is also a deeply closeted Land Taxer.Entitled "Balls spounts balls" (British public ie private  school "humour" and bad spelling) ,he describes the cost of contruction( what you  Americans [in spirit] call improvement value) of a typical three-bedroom British house as being £110k>£112k.Then"Oh and the land value for such a three bedder with planning permission is around £100k ,for any region of the country where there is someone actually looking for a house,that is." I would say that its his construction value that's a bit high.
                          As for Social Credit, I'm the only one that mentions it on landcafe.If I'd known you were such an expert ,I 'd have mentioned spraying National Dividends  around Detroit to raise a bit of effective demand.As Detroit is right on the border and has a river system that fits into the St Lawrence Seaway, perhaps it should develop its economic ties with Canada,the way Cascadians see BC and American points south as a new country.Perhaps Detroit/Michigan should secede and join Canada!At least Canada has some proper Socialists : basic car insurance in Saskatchewan can only be obtained from the government.Great stuff! ( I am not being entirely serious in proposing Detroit secedes from the Union BTW)   

                          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          From: roy_langston@...
                          Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 05:55:23 +0000
                          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?Also Social Credit in Canada

                           
                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                          > @Roy LangstonI'm afraid a lot of this does n't make sense .

                          True, as I didn't write a lot of it.

                          >i)How can my approach be "over-literate"?Do you mean over-literal?

                          Yes. My mistake.

                          > Perhaps not, because when I take a less pedantic view of Ricardo ,you accuse me of being " inaccurate". Your attitude would appear to be in your next thrash-about paragraph : Ricardo means whatever I think he means at the time,never mind what he said, which only the "over-literate" bother about .

                          Actually, the problem is in your imagining, Derrida-like, that what Ricardo said is relevant in any way. You appear to share Derrida's view that there is no reality that texts are about, only the texts themselves.

                          But just as Newton did not govern the physical universe with his words and symbols describing physical interactions, Ricardo did not govern economic relationships by describing them. His words identified some relevant facts, but the words did not create the facts. The facts are what matter, not the words used to identify and describe them. You don't seem to be very clear on this.

                          > ii) A reasonable person would have disproved with alternative figures my numerical sequence showing a UIE prompted growth in house prices .

                          Your numerical sequence showed no such thing, because it ignored the requirement of an underlying difference in economic advantage.

                          > You use pretentious ,possibly "over literate" bluster.

                          I like to get some enjoyment out of what would otherwise be a regal pain in the labonza.

                          > iii)Your latest position on Walto's children as cash cows is that it is the same with Income Tax and therefore a good thing.Hmm.

                          As you know, I made no such claim. I simply pointed out that the existing system of universal individual income tax exemptions is prima facie proof that even if the "arguments" so far offered against the U in the UIE from LVT had any merit (they don't), the universality of individual income tax exemptions proves there are strong, practical, economic and political reasons for universality.

                          > More importantly you don't appear to understand monetary alternatives (such as Social Credit's National Dividends) to recyclying ground rent.

                          I understand them far better than you, as I prove every time the subject comes up.

                          > This is odd because you are singularly well-placed in BC which had a Social Credit Provincial government until the 1970's under Wacky Bennett.

                          You are of course unaware that the Bennett government was Social Credit in name only, and was actually a coalition of right-wing Liberals and Conservatives who joined forces under the Social Credit banner to prevent the leftist CCF (later NDP) from forming a government.

                          > This could not get round the constitutional prohibition of State owned banks in Canada as a whole, but came up with some fairly startling and successful State owned corporations.Next door in Alberta ,there was the more orthodox Social Credit government of Bible Bill Aberhart in the 1930's onwards.You declare that National Dividends presuppose" money issuance effected by an independent government authority".

                          No, I simply warn against issuing money by any other means.

                          > This is precisely what the Social Crediters thought.The Alberta Treasury Branches, which exist to this day, were Aberhart's attempt to set up a State owned bank.Farther East ,Saskatchewan came up with the first North American National Health Service which Michael Moore highlighted in Sicko.I wonder you do not research West Canada's successful projects in escaping Bank Control rather than insisting on re-inventing the wheel using American ideology.

                          I wonder that you imagine any of the above paragraph is relevant or constructive.

                          > iv As usual with the UK Situation you don't know what you are talking about.

                          Says the woefully underinformed Brit who just presumed to lecture me about Western Canadian political history....

                          > Land value is a huge proportion of house prices everywhere.

                          No, it isn't. There are many places where land value is so low that house prices are effectively all improvement value.

                          > Abolish Council Tax and we've got nothing to" build on".

                          You haven't anyway, as Council Tax is nothing to build on.

                          > You could propose extending and updating this tax ,then converting the assessment to one based on land values.But you don't.

                          Because it's too big a mess, and you end up having to defend all the flaws of "Council Tax." Better to start fresh.

                          -- Roy Langston


                        • roy_langston
                          ... At least I understand that money issuance has to be regulated by prices, not the desire for control of seigniorage. ... I ve proved I do. ... Wrong.
                          Message 12 of 24 , Oct 2, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

                            > I haven't seen any proof that you understand Social Credit's National Dividends better than I do .

                            At least I understand that money issuance has to be regulated by prices, not the desire for control of seigniorage.

                            > And you certainly don't know anything about British house prices.

                            I've proved I do.

                            > There is more to proof than irritable one-liners: you have to amass evidence in the way of facts and figures, quotes, instances and worked examples.

                            Wrong. Sometimes a single fact constitutes proof.

                            > Just for starters.In the latter instance of British house prices, I would refer you to the current blog-site of Tim Worstall ,an English right-wing minarchist who is also a deeply closeted Land Taxer.Entitled "Balls spounts balls" (British public ie private school "humour" and bad spelling) ,he describes the cost of contruction( what you Americans [in spirit] call improvement value)

                            Improvement value is property value less land value, not construction cost.

                            > of a typical three-bedroom British house as being £110k>£112k.Then"Oh and the land value for such a three bedder with planning permission is around £100k ,for any region of the country where there is someone actually looking for a house,that is." I would say that its his construction value that's a bit high.

                            Do mean his construction _cost_?

                            > As for Social Credit, I'm the only one that mentions it on landcafe.

                            Mercifully.

                            > If I'd known you were such an expert ,I 'd have mentioned spraying National Dividends around Detroit to raise a bit of effective demand.

                            To what purpose?

                            > As Detroit is right on the border and has a river system that fits into the St Lawrence Seaway, perhaps it should develop its economic ties with Canada,

                            The people of Windsor, just across the river from Detroit, view Detroit as a festering sore they do not want to touch.

                            > the way Cascadians see BC and American points south as a new country.

                            Which we don't.

                            > Perhaps Detroit/Michigan should secede and join Canada!At least Canada has some proper Socialists : basic car insurance in Saskatchewan can only be obtained from the government.Great stuff!

                            Though what it has to do with collective ownership of the means of production is anyone's guess.

                            > ( I am not being entirely serious in proposing Detroit secedes from the Union BTW)

                            Yes, it's often difficult to be sure what you are being entirely serious about.

                            -- Roy Langston
                          • roy_langston
                            ... No, it s a pragmatic argument by analogy: tax? check; individual exemption from tax? check; exemption universal, including babies ? check. I haven t
                            Message 13 of 24 , Oct 2, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

                              > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > As you know, I made no such claim. I simply pointed out that the existing system of universal individual income tax exemptions is prima facie proof that even if the "arguments" so far offered against the U in the UIE from LVT had any merit (they don't), the universality of individual income tax exemptions proves there are strong, practical, economic and political reasons for universality.
                              >
                              > That, my friend, is an argument from (a particularly bad) authority

                              No, it's a pragmatic argument by analogy: tax? check; individual exemption from tax? check; exemption universal, including "babies"? check. I haven't identified or invoked any authority.

                              > --coming from one who would like to blow up the current tax code.

                              But who, unlike some, is willing to learn from it.

                              > "Provides some evidence for" only means "proves" in Langstonese.

                              Well, it's proof compared to not having provided ANY evidence.

                              -- Roy Langston
                            • David Reed
                              @krjWe have gone round the houses with these figures before see this September example. Dave W is interested in the Mansion Tax style exemption and so needs
                              Message 14 of 24 , Nov 28, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                @krj
                                We have gone round the houses with these figures before see this September example.
                                Dave W is interested in the Mansion Tax style exemption and so needs the correct figures. So back of an envelope style estimates  will not suffice. I gave the following (back in Sept) from your friend and mine (also Dave W's) Mark Wadsworth, fag packet maestro supreme:Total UK property values (ie land and buildings)=£6,ooo billions made up of housing= £5,000 billion,commercial= £750 billion,farmland= £250 billion.(All land and buildings except, obviously, farmland).These look alright to me (MW is not going to get his figures wrong) and anyway since the VoA does n't have any contrary figures we may as well use our own.Dave W does not seem prepared to use them though. 

                                To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                From: davewetzel42@...
                                Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:03:13 +0100
                                Subject: [LandCafe] How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?

                                 

                                I'm just back from Dublin asvocating LVT.
                                 
                                The other Saturday I was speaking on LVT to the UK's "Labour Housing Group" who agreed to renew their support for LVT.
                                They are a small group but very influential in Labour circles with Nicky Gavron (the first Deputy Mayor of London) actually present. They discussed with me the problem of getting voters liable to pay LVT on their homes to vote for LVT to replace Council Tax and/or other taxes.
                                 (or "How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving"?
                                We discussed homestead allowance and rollover but Nicky and some others seemed not to be convinced that Labour politicians will suppport a new (even if replacement) tax on homes.
                                Following from this what if Labour committed to introduced LVT on ALL land - except for occupied homes worth less than £2m - and currently paying Council Tax (who would continue to pay Council Tax instead of LVT). [Council Tax is the UK's domestic residentail property tax on occupiers].
                                Occupied homes less than £2m in value and their gardens probably represent less than 5% of the total UK land area. So full LVT would be levied on the remaining 95% including all empty homes, the most expensive houses, house-builders' land banks, all land used for business and commerce, all farmland, all brownfield sites in towns and cities, all windfarms, the spectrum and airport landing slots etc.
                                I recognise that this approach would not have the same beneficial effects as full LVT on all land including occupied residential properties but would it be an approach worth supporting to introduce LVT to the UK?


                              • k_r_johansen
                                Then I d say what stands in the way of getting a picture of current values in the residential market is the current refusal to do new CT-valuations,
                                Message 15 of 24 , Nov 28, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Then I'd say what stands in the way of getting a picture of current values in the residential market is the current refusal to do new CT-valuations, unfortunately (supposedly a 250m £ revaluation cost, or around one percent of the annual CT-take, is the barrier trotted around by opponents). Someone in the VOA ought to be able to give up the 1993-figures though, to give an estimate on proportion of housing likely to be in the subgroup he wants.

                                  Kj

                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > @krjWe have gone round the houses with these figures before see this September example.
                                  > Dave W is interested in the Mansion Tax style exemption and so needs the correct figures. So back of an envelope style estimates will not suffice. I gave the following (back in Sept) from your friend and mine (also Dave W's) Mark Wadsworth, fag packet maestro supreme:Total UK property values (ie land and buildings)=£6,ooo billions made up of housing= £5,000 billion,commercial= £750 billion,farmland= £250 billion.(All land and buildings except, obviously, farmland).These look alright to me (MW is not going to get his figures wrong) and anyway since the VoA does n't have any contrary figures we may as well use our own.Dave W does not seem prepared to use them though. To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                  > From: davewetzel42@...
                                  > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:03:13 +0100
                                  > Subject: [LandCafe] How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I'm just back from Dublin asvocating LVT. The other Saturday I was speaking on LVT to the UK's "Labour Housing Group" who agreed to renew their support for LVT.
                                  >
                                  > They are a small group but very influential in Labour circles with Nicky Gavron (the first Deputy Mayor of London) actually present. They discussed with me the problem of getting voters liable to pay LVT on their homes to vote for LVT to replace Council Tax and/or other taxes.
                                  >
                                  > (or "How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving"? We discussed homestead allowance and rollover but Nicky and some others seemed not to be convinced that Labour politicians will suppport a new (even if replacement) tax on homes.
                                  >
                                  > Following from this what if Labour committed to introduced LVT on ALL land - except for occupied homes worth less than £2m - and currently paying Council Tax (who would continue to pay Council Tax instead of LVT). [Council Tax is the UK's domestic residentail property tax on occupiers].
                                  >
                                  > Occupied homes less than £2m in value and their gardens probably represent less than 5% of the total UK land area. So full LVT would be levied on the remaining 95% including all empty homes, the most expensive houses, house-builders' land banks, all land used for business and commerce, all farmland, all brownfield sites in towns and cities, all windfarms, the spectrum and airport landing slots etc.
                                  >
                                  > I recognise that this approach would not have the same beneficial effects as full LVT on all land including occupied residential properties but would it be an approach worth supporting to introduce LVT to the UK?
                                  >
                                  > www.LabourLand.org
                                  > www.TheIU.org
                                  > www.course.earthrights.net
                                  >
                                • John David Kromkowski
                                  If one is going to work out a system with exemption/discount (or even benefits - like council tax has for low income, there are benefits calculators which
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Nov 28, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    If one is going to work out a system with exemption/discount (or even benefits - like council tax has for low income, there are benefits calculators which could be modified EG, http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/benefits_calculator/wbc-xpSp12/wbc-xpSp12.htm ),  you've got to have the data.

                                    I think it would be pretty straight forward to work about benefits calculator (for individuals and/or households) that would do the trick.  That is something that falls somewhere between a Universal Individual (or household) Exemption and a CD for the unemployment or working poor not making a living wage.  

                                    So a straight tax on on land and then benefits (which would be like the housing allocation benefit that the council tax has as I think I understand it.  (which might only be to ameliorate a portion of the land value tax).

                                    The best figures to use should come from the VoA  who obviously has experience and whoever is coming up with the council tax values.

                                    For example,  I looked at the Wycombe District and picked and address at random

                                    21, Lincoln House, Brookfield Road, Wooburn Green, High Wycombe, Bucks, HP10 0QA

                                    Some how that property got "assessed" such that its value ended it up in B band and its council tax was

                                    Amount 2012-13: £1145.91

                                    The data is somewhere in some computer and in coming up with the assesment to put it into a band, I am pretty sure the land was assessed separately as part of the process.


                                    It might be old and wrong but, you've got to start somewhere.  Start with what the government is already doing via council tax and business rates.

                                    JDK




                                    On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:25 AM, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                                    @krj
                                    We have gone round the houses with these figures before see this September example.
                                    Dave W is interested in the Mansion Tax style exemption and so needs the correct figures. So back of an envelope style estimates  will not suffice. I gave the following (back in Sept) from your friend and mine (also Dave W's) Mark Wadsworth, fag packet maestro supreme:Total UK property values (ie land and buildings)=£6,ooo billions made up of housing= £5,000 billion,commercial= £750 billion,farmland= £250 billion.(All land and buildings except, obviously, farmland).These look alright to me (MW is not going to get his figures wrong) and anyway since the VoA does n't have any contrary figures we may as well use our own.Dave W does not seem prepared to use them though. 

                                    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                    From: davewetzel42@...
                                    Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:03:13 +0100
                                    Subject: [LandCafe] How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving?

                                     

                                    I'm just back from Dublin asvocating LVT.
                                     
                                    The other Saturday I was speaking on LVT to the UK's "Labour Housing Group" who agreed to renew their support for LVT.
                                    They are a small group but very influential in Labour circles with Nicky Gavron (the first Deputy Mayor of London) actually present. They discussed with me the problem of getting voters liable to pay LVT on their homes to vote for LVT to replace Council Tax and/or other taxes.
                                     (or "How do we get Turkeys to vote for Xmas/Thanksgiving"?
                                    We discussed homestead allowance and rollover but Nicky and some others seemed not to be convinced that Labour politicians will suppport a new (even if replacement) tax on homes.
                                    Following from this what if Labour committed to introduced LVT on ALL land - except for occupied homes worth less than £2m - and currently paying Council Tax (who would continue to pay Council Tax instead of LVT). [Council Tax is the UK's domestic residentail property tax on occupiers].
                                    Occupied homes less than £2m in value and their gardens probably represent less than 5% of the total UK land area. So full LVT would be levied on the remaining 95% including all empty homes, the most expensive houses, house-builders' land banks, all land used for business and commerce, all farmland, all brownfield sites in towns and cities, all windfarms, the spectrum and airport landing slots etc.
                                    I recognise that this approach would not have the same beneficial effects as full LVT on all land including occupied residential properties but would it be an approach worth supporting to introduce LVT to the UK?





                                    --
                                    Very truly yours

                                    John D. Kromkowski
                                    6803 York Road -- Suite 207
                                    Baltimore, MD 21212

                                    Tel     410-377-6248
                                    Fax     410-372-0624
                                    Mobile  443-271-0500

                                    This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.

                                    If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving  in any manner.
                                  • k_r_johansen
                                    ... Exactly. There are so many benefits and separate taxes in the UK system that there are countless ways of sneaking in a LVT/UIE without anyone noticing.
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Nov 28, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > If one is going to work out a system with exemption/discount (or even
                                      > benefits - like council tax has for low income, there are benefits
                                      > calculators which could be modified EG,
                                      > http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/benefits_calculator/wbc-xpSp12/wbc-xpSp12.htm ),
                                      > you've got to have the data.
                                      >
                                      > I think it would be pretty straight forward to work about benefits
                                      > calculator (for individuals and/or households) that would do the trick.
                                      > That is something that falls somewhere between a Universal Individual (or
                                      > household) Exemption and a CD for the unemployment or working poor not
                                      > making a living wage.
                                      >
                                      > So a straight tax on on land and then benefits (which would be like the
                                      > housing allocation benefit that the council tax has as I think I understand
                                      > it. (which might only be to ameliorate a portion of the land value tax).
                                      >

                                      Exactly. There are so many benefits and separate taxes in the UK system that there are countless ways of sneaking in a LVT/UIE without anyone noticing. They already have council tax benefit, and for the working population, you could do it as a straight deduction from income taxes exactly equal council benefit. Revalue residental properties, add new bands to council-tax and base it more on land values, steer business rates towards the same valuation method, and they're practically there.

                                      Kj

                                      Kj
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.