Re: Misc taxation Gesell & Johansen
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>Why and why would I deny it? I would apoligise for being insulting, if I hadn't thought of every post of yours, who with few exceptions include mischaracterisations of your supposed opponents, usually based on guilt by association, denial of everything that isn't a call on authority, and general unreadability. You see, I wouldn't say that anyone was "wasting everyone's time" just because I'd disagree with someone while constantly engaging in the discussion anyway. So I won't. But I'll agree to be civil.
> @KRJSince you have been so insulting,I believe I have the right to respond, though you would deny it.<
>You are thick if you think you can extract from young houseowners all the place's historic land rents which they have paid for in the purchase price and which they have not benefited from.RL recognises there is a problem here, hence his countervailing RP exemption.You are going some if you are thicker and more offensive than he is.You also ignore the collapse of capitalism which you appear to think is some "transitional" issue.<That's interesting, and a good example of your mode of discussion, because if you review my posts, I haven't mentioned issues regarding phasing in at all, RPE etc.. Not at all.Only LVT theory assuming it was implemented. And I don't have any good answers to this, but I have some views.
First of all, purchase price is capitalisation of future rental value, not historical, as has been mentioned at least once before. As I don't believe land rents are justified, no, I don't think there should be compensation. Not being taxed on income/transactions is the "compensation", and the rectifying of a pretty horrible system that keeps people in poverty. Obviously you don't see a problem with taxing income and capital, you just want a tax on property that isn't supposed to raise money. But there should definetly be a programme for phasing in, avoid creating sudden hardship, avoid negative equity for the sake of individuals and the financial system. That may be something along the lines of what Roy is proposing, or it may be something else, I honestly don't know. Satisfied?
> Walto has indicated there is a need for some computer modelling of the likely outcomes from various schemes. A pity you and the individual exemptionist gang have n't done this already ,since you go apeshit if I suggest ways the figures might pan out which you don't like the look of.<So, in what way would these go apeshit? As I've said, exemptions/CDs need to be awarded as portion of the total budget, in the case of LVT, the total assessment, and are supposed to replace a host of current expenditure on transfer payments, how on earth can an apportioned part of a budget go apeshit? Yes, modelling is a good idea.
>It is a pity Walto is now going wobbly on the idea: nobody else is sufficiently objective .(However I am not happy about the retrospective taxation implied in one scenario and labelled Millian; nor does Gilligan's Island seem big or old enough to have generated the historic land rents or enough sales of land to reflect the depth of the present crisis.)To tell you the truth: I am not sick of Land Value Tax but I am heartily sick of Land Value Taxers.<Sorry to hear that people's lack of reverence for your point of view cause you this grief.
- --- 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.