Re: Misc taxation Gesell & Johansen
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:If that's what he meant, it was still wrong. The RPE is for recent purchases. If you have owned in the area for a long time, but bought more land, traded up, or whatever just before implementation, you still get the RPE for the recently purchased parcel.
> >> 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.
> It wasn't actually a "fabrication"--he clearly meant new to ownership in that area. And I'm guessing you understood that.
> 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.There shouldn't, and isn't. The RPE schedule is set for each parcel at the time of implementation. It transfers with the parcel, but can't be reset or renewed, because it is purely to protect recent purchasers from having to pay for land twice, and to protect the banking system from vanishing mortgage collateral. RPEs on parcels purchased 19 years before implementation expire after the first year. After 20 years, the last RPEs (on parcels purchased immediately before the implementation) expire.
> 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?No. There are no new RPEs after the transition set. The only RPEs that will ever exist are determined at the time of implementation, and after 20 years they have all expired and there are none left.
> What possible reason could there be for that policy?None. It would be ridiculous. Are you sure DR didn't think of it first?
> 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).Right. Which is why the RPE is only for land that was most recently purchased less than 20 years BEFORE the LVT implementation date.
> Seems wrongheaded to me, but maybe I'm missing something.I won't speculate on what.
-- Roy Langston
- --- 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.