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

Re: Misc taxation Gesell & Johansen

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... No. No. No. No. No. No. No. ... No. ... I explained the mathematics of it. You either didn t understand it, or ignored it. ... David, that is
    Message 1 of 127 , Oct 22, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

      > About a a half of the land by value?

      No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

      > This is an underestimate because families with two kids can move into above median sites and not pay any LVT.More kids> more encroachment on the upper deciles.


      > Have you lot ever produced any worked examples of occupation patterns for people not paying any LVT across the board? No I thought not.

      I explained the mathematics of it. You either didn't understand it, or ignored it.

      > "... I find it hard to believe where land rents are taxed,you can be speaking of house price inflation."But the exemption ideal is to maximise the number of people not paying the tax and the size of each exemption."

      David, that is another absurd fabrication on your part.

      > Please specify who actually is going to pay this tax

      Everyone who uses more than half the median land value used per person.

      > (This is what tax means: you pay the government,not that the government gives you the money to pay them e.g "Everything" (not everything actually)" is taxed,but you are given something to pay that bill (not something ,all of it in a lot of cases.

      Define "a lot of."

      > Do you know how many per decile of house plot value ? No I thought not.)

      It's true that I don't know how many per decile of house plot value, because I have no idea what you incorrectly imagine "how many per decile of house plot value" means. The words seem to be English (which will no doubt be reassuring to KRJ), but I can't imagine anything they might refer to.

      > Anyway your idea of a tax is where the government gives you the money to pay it.

      That is not only false and absurd, it is dishonest.

      > All your comments about large families pertain to "current child benefits" and are therefore totally misleading .

      How is referring to current child tax benefits misleading, when discussing a proposed child tax benefit?

      > The UIE places benefits to adults and children on an equal footing if you had n't noticed."If they use this economic room to bid up some other property" (something RL says could never happen BTW)"

      No, I said it could happen if people were as stupid as you seem to believe they would be (based, presumably, on your own personal experience of how stupid the people you know best actually are).

      > they will pay pay more LVT" No they won't.The economic room afforded by two children allows a couple to avoid twice the median land tax,which in any normal maths stretches to the top of the range.


      > (Also if the top of the range is upped the median goes with it.)

      No, because IT'S STILL DIVIDED BY FOUR. You clearly haven't the slightest understanding of the mathematical relationships, sorry.

      > Additional comments: you do not seem to accept that current tax on historic land value increases is fundamentally unjust and penalises young people for assuming ,when they buy a place in good faith , the tax liablities that rightly belong to the previous owner's generation.

      They belong specifically to the previous owner himself, not "his generation."

      > (RL recognises this which is he has the RP Exemption.Not sure you have this in mind; Mark Wadsworth's near identical scheme (so you say) does n't as far as I know,which would at least be consistent.So under the worst (ie. RL) scenario, a newcomer could claim God knows how many full exemptions depending on the size of the family plus a decreasing with time exemption for being new to the area.

      That is another outright fabrication. It has nothing to do with being new to the area, only new to ownership of that parcel.

      > Like I said, you are wasting people's time with all this.

      ??? This, from DAVID??!?


      -- Roy Langston
    • k_r_johansen
      ... 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
      Message 127 of 127 , Nov 2 1:43 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
        > Quoting k_r_johansen on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:45:37 -0000:
        > ___roy_langston___
        > Interesting concept. In most cases, owners servicing mortgages would just
        > use their UIEs as an offset to the LVT and continue making the payments.
        > ___Kj___
        > 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.

        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.

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