Re: Misc taxation Gesell & Johansen
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> Another note on the previous post; *exemption for the portion of the interest and repayments associated with land*.Interesting concept. In most cases, owners servicing mortgages would just use their UIEs as an offset to the LVT and continue making the payments. But if the land portion of the mortgage payments were much greater than the available UIEs, the government could offer a deal to the mortgage holder and debtor whereby it would acquire the mortgage from the holder at a suitable discount (10%, say), and then discount the debtor's future UIEs to satisfy the mortgage without increasing the debtor's total monthly payments. I.e., it would effectively reduce the mortgage payments and extend the term, using the debtor's expected future UIEs as collateral. I'll have to think about how that would work, and whether it could be modified to resolve the Poor Widow Problem.
> Or just have govt. buy up all the debt associated with land from each mortgage I guess, as long as govt. makes it clear that it's not buying the claim itself, but relieving the debtor of the debt in exchange for not giving the exemption on repayments.
Thanks for the idea.
-- 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.