--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> @KRJSince you have been so insulting,I believe I have the right to respond, though you would deny it.<
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.
>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.