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

Re: Misc taxation Gesell & Johansen

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... David s statement was not an error. It was a fabrication. David knew perfectly well that the RPE is not for being new to the area. His misstatements
    Message 1 of 127 , Oct 23, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >> 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.
      > >
      > > If that's what he meant, it was still wrong.
      >
      > An error is not a fabrication: you need to learn that at some point.

      David's statement was not an error. It was a fabrication. David knew perfectly well that the RPE is not "for being new to the area." His misstatements of what I have plainly written are too frequent and too consistent to be mere errors -- though he makes plenty of those, too.

      > > > Seems wrongheaded to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
      > >
      > > I won't speculate on what.
      >
      > You mean you're thinking that if somebody agrees with you about something (that there should only be recent purchase exemptions during the early years of LVT implementation) he or she is probably missing something important?

      No, that if they assumed otherwise they were missing something important -- like what I plainly wrote.

      > Anyhow, that is obviously a good feature of the RPE--my question remains whether it is preferable to an overall gradual implementation of LVT in the district with a backward looking land gains tax attached.

      PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW THAT TAX WOULD WORK.

      > I like the idea of recouping past unearned gains where possible,

      It sounds nice, but unfortunately opens a huge can of worms. Retroactive taxation is rightly viewed askance.

      > and I don't like the idea neighbors having wildly different current rates, depending on when they bought their property--especially if neither has benefited from any unearned increment.

      The benefit has been in their use of the land. One neighbor has already had that benefit, the other hasn't. I have explained this.

      -- 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, 2012
      • 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.

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