Re: [LandCafe] Re: Misc taxation Gesell & Johansen
- KRJ: "There is always a certain portion of land value (usually around 20% of built land it seems is common), which is business-owned, and that would pay their tax-liability in full, which will slightly increase the amount of people into net-non-taxpayer status."JDK: Well, in Baltimore, it is far greater than 20% of the total land value that is own buy corporations. In fact, the top 1% of land owners (all corporations) owned 58% of the total land value!
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM, k_r_johansen <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
Another comment. Those who us who call a CD a CD, will say that the total government budget in this simple example is 130, and that 65 is spent for distributing dividends, but those who call it exemptions, will say that the total government budget is 65, post exemptions. It doesn't matter. MW's proposals are costed according to the total UK budget under an LVT-regime, and he describes the CD as a sum per week, different for adults, pensioners and children. The figures I give down below are ofcourse entirely made up, and doesn't reflect the actual distribution of land values. There is always a certain portion of land value (usually around 20% of built land it seems is common), which is business-owned, and that would pay their tax-liability in full, which will slightly increase the amount of people into net-non-taxpayer status. But all land is still assessed and charged, and any exemption or CD has to be apportioned as a function of the total land rents and what level of government expenditure there is. Whether people pay this with their earned income or their share of LVT-revenue, the land will still be subject to a liability, one that no sensible bank would mortgage as a higher land value even if several people is able to band together and be non-net-taxpayers. The point of all this is also a matter of taste. As Roy says, there is an argument that people have a right to land, to which I tend to agree with, and we can all bicker about who gets what. Some say that everyone should have a basic income for a range of reasons. But your blanket rejection of anything Roy says is nonsensical.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> I'll give you a simple example. There are five persons, with five different tax liabilities, a:10, b:20, c:20, d:30 e:50. Total assessed tax liability is 130. They decide that they want to apportion 50% of the budget to a grant for each person. That wold be a per capita grant of 13 per person.
> The net payment to government is as following:
> Net revenue to government is 65, 50 % of the assessed tax liability. Then you can tweak the numbers. Maybe person A is really a household with 2 people, and person D is a household with 2 adults and two children, and you decide that the grant per kid is half that of adults. Then you take 65 and divide it by 8, which means every adult get a grant of 8 (rounded), and each child get 4 (rounded). Then you get the following net payment to government:
> A: -6
> B: +12
> C: +12
> D: +6
> E: +42
> Net revenue for government is 65(rounded)
> Maybe you want to go the other way, and purposefully make the grant half of the median assessment, in this case 10, and everyone, including children gets one. Well that would make the outlay 100 out of 130, which is clearly not affordable if there are important tasks to be done that requires a higher budget than 30. But that's all political and a matter of doing the figures.
> The point of this is: negative tax transfers is entirely possible. What level to set the grant (or "exemption") if you like, is all up to budget considerations and political flavour. Get it?
Very truly yours
John D. Kromkowski
6803 York Road -- Suite 207
Baltimore, MD 21212
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.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
>Sorry for the late response. What do you mean by collateral then? Land/buildings can be handed over to the lender as well, can't it? Both loans secured on a physical object that can redeem the debt by reposession, and personal debts, should be entirely legal. I'm not sure if you mean that any specific institutional aspect of mortgage collateral should be abolished, or the idea, which is kind of the basis of risk-taking and economic growth IMO. If anything, the american model is better than what I know as mortgages. AFAIU you can hand over your property and "walk away". No such thing exists here. Even if you hand back the property, you are personally liable for the redemption of the debt, and a creditor sale of a property (moveable objects as well), can only be done through the courts.
> Quoting k_r_johansen on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:45:37 -0000:
> Interesting concept. In most cases, owners servicing mortgages would just
> use their UIEs as an offset to the LVT and continue making the payments.
> If we are talking about a straight swap from income tax to
> LVT, most people would theoretically still have the ability to
> pay. The problem is, and I admit I'm looking at this from the
> Bankster's side, that the collateral just isn't there any more
> (assuming capital values do fall, which I believe they will),
> and the change in risk has implications. Imagine that the country
> suddenly changed systems, and (by the figures I gave), a debt load
> of somewhere around 50% of GDP changed from being collateralized
> to more or less personal loans, but at an interest of 4%.
> Govt. would have to step in as a guarantee in either scheme.
> Abolish collateral. Even more than land privilege, that
> bankster concept keeps people enslaved. If it isn't
> outright security; i.e., something that can be handed over
> to the lender, thus entirely discharging the debt; the
> debt is unconscionable, and ought to be nullified outright.
> Obviously, this also requires concomitant abolition of
> Glass-Steagall (FDIC). Write down all deposits in any given
> institution proportionate to nullification of its assets.