Re: Misc taxation Gesell & Johansen
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
>It wasn't actually a "fabrication"--he clearly meant new to ownership in that area. And I'm guessing you understood that.
>> 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.
Anyhow, I have a question. Why should there be a recent purchase exemption on plots in areas that have been subject to full LVT for a long time. Say some plot has been surrendering the full rental value of the unimproved land to the community for a decade. Then somebody buys that property. Now, it's no longer subject to LVT for awhile? What possible reason could there be for that policy? The buyer isn't being reamed, since the purchase price of the lot already reflected the tax liability (or would if there were no RPE on it).
Seems wrongheaded to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
- --- 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.