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

Re:Total land rent?

Expand Messages
  • walto
    ... No no, it s an example of John s style of Christian charity. ... 1993 was the era of Clintonian lies. Bronze age myths are the shizzzz! W
    Message 1 of 23 , Nov 14, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@> wrote:
      >
      > > On the other hand, I don't know Hudson but everything I've read by him and heard about makes me think that he is just a retread commie trying to Coopt land taxation. So basically I'm skeptical on most of his assertions/ propaganda.
      >
      > Such McCarthyite character assassination is grotesque and absurd.
      >

      No no, it's an example of John's style of Christian charity.



      > > Whatever happened in 1993 is so long ago that it is hardly worth thinking about.
      >
      > Yet what _didn't_ happen a hundred times longer ago is somehow worthy to govern your moral reasoning....
      >


      1993 was the era of Clintonian lies. Bronze age myths are the shizzzz!

      W
    • roy_langston
      ... More accurately, metaphysical. ... No, it s what the buyer who wants it most would have to pay to secure it from whoever wants it second most. ...
      Message 2 of 23 , Nov 15, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty" <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

        > JDK: My point was more esoteric.

        More accurately, metaphysical.

        > Market value is what a reasonable and willing buyer and a reasonable and willing seller would agree to.

        No, it's what the buyer who wants it most would have to pay to secure it from whoever wants it second most.

        > It is a kind of myth which we use because there is no actual true value. So we all have to understand that there is a process of estimation going on.

        Irrelevant. People have height and weight even though measuring them precisely, moment to moment, would find differences, and no one -- other than a nut, maybe -- would claim on that account that people have no actual true height or weight.

        > What is the true value for an Apple stock share? Who knows?

        "Value" for what purpose? The most recent transaction price is a close enough measure, just as stepping on a scale provides a close enough measure of one's weight.

        > We can tell the last close. We can tell last sale (actual willing buyer and willing seller) at some particular second or microsecond in time. But neither are guarantees of the value will be 2 secs later or 2 days later. But we cannot know the true market value.

        Can we know someone's "true" weight? Does it depend on what they had for lunch? On whether they are holding their breath?

        Such straining at gnats is just silly.

        > If there are no sales in a neighborhood, but there is one and only one guy putting in a $1 bids on the houses in the neighbor. The homes are not just worth $1. And by the same token if this same $1 nut, tomorrow puts a $1M bid on a random home, but the owner say that guy is just a nut I'm not selling to him for the sake of my neighbors who I like, that does not mean that that house is worth $1M or more than $1M. (Even though maybe he should sell if he were a robot.)

        True: even if the owner DID sell for the $1M, one nut's eccentric behavior is not an indication of what the house would sell for in the market.

        > The point is that the home market is not as rational as the business market. There is no price finding mechanism, like there is for stocks.

        ?? Of course there is. Real estate appraisers make their living from that price finding mechanism.

        > We can make some reasonable estimations but I don't want us to think that this is really some true "market thing" like has development for agricultural products or other commodities or equities.

        But in fact, it is. It's just not as liquid.

        > But back to the true question:
        >
        > What is an estimate of the total land rent (or land value) for the US and by what method and with what data?

        And I again refer you to Gaffney 2008.

        -- Roy Langston
      • roy_langston
        ... The Austrians are married to their brain-dead subjective theory of value. Some have actually told me that as the owner of the land clearly values it more
        Message 3 of 23 , Nov 15, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:

          > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty" <jdkromkowski@> wrote:
          > >
          > > JDK: My point was more esoteric. Market value is what a reasonable and willing buyer and a reasonable and willing seller would agree to. It is a kind of myth which we use because there is no actual true value. So we all have to understand that there is a process of estimation going on.<
          >
          > I've seen some Austrians make that argument against LVT.

          The Austrians are married to their brain-dead subjective theory of value. Some have actually told me that as the owner of the land clearly values it more than anyone else, it's value comes from HIM, not from nature, government spending, or the community!

          -- Roy Langston
        • k_r_johansen
          ... I thought I d go back to your figures again, since it s not a very mathematically sound way of looking at it. Let s turn it around, and say how much would
          Message 4 of 23 , Nov 15, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
            >
            > As to 6.4 trillion, the rent suggested by HGT for the US; yes HGT is a
            > theory for the ideal, but it is a useful starting place. That you can show
            > (or assert) that the 6.4 trillion spent by government at all levels
            > annually in US last year is wasteful and corrupt spending does not mean
            > that 6.4 trillion could not be spent usefully and non-corruptly. So it
            > seems to me that it is still a good starting figure. And is certainly a way
            > to test any proposed figure like Ed's or anybody else;s figure.
            >
            > If we use Ed's figure for land value (which I agree seems low but who
            > knows) then all government (in aggregate would have to levy a lvt of 53%
            > of value. That's the kind of number that makes people do a spit take with
            > whatever they are drinking. We(my two wage earner family of 3) couldn't
            > afford to pay that much of our assessed land value (which you say is too
            > low) per year. We just wouldn't have the income to cover it. I'm not sure
            > even a UIE is going to help me on that one.
            >
            > As to assertion that most of the Total VALUE of land is in residential
            > land, I am skeptical about that on a national basis. It isn't true in
            > Baltimore City.
            >
            > JDK


            I thought I'd go back to your figures again, since it's not a very mathematically sound way of looking at it. Let's turn it around, and say how much would the average (mean) household pay in taxes if all current taxes were put to land, ignoring the actual assessable land value, but apportioning it to each property's value relative to all other property.
            First of all, it's best to do like for like, plugging the deficit is a separate debate from LVT or not. According to www.usgovernmentrevenue.com, estimated total tax take in 2012 is 5 tr. USD.
            Divided by 115 m households, that's 43K per household. Now let's say that 20% is payable by businesses. I'm ignoring whether corporations owns residental land or not, it is still embedded in rent paid by tenants. And I don't believe the vast expanses of farmland, forests, prairie etc., are particulary valuable, but there are some resource rents. But anyway, if I'm wrong, the figures would just work in our favour. That brings the figure down to 35K per household. That's the mean, and the median would probably be slightly lower. Now let's say we spend 25% of the total tax take on UIE's on a per capita basis, which isn't that generous IMO. That would come out at 3,3K per capita with 304m people. So a 4 person family living on the average property would pay net 21,8K. And the same family living on a property valued at around 60% of the mean would be in the clear. Add/deduct your excise taxes or other acceptable revenue of choice for more spending/less LVT.

            Kj
          • John David Kromkowski
            JDK: turning it around is an ok way to work at it, too. But getting a good dataset is complicated. It is even more complicated because at the federal level
            Message 5 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              JDK:  turning it around is an ok way to work at it, too.  But getting a good dataset is complicated.   It is even more complicated because at the federal level you have to apportion the tax.  EG I live in MD, so marylanders pay like 1.9% of the total.

              Don't have time, right not to work it.

              I think the US is 2.3 billion acres of land.  Does an average price of 2500 per acre sound right?  

              But 375 million acres are in Alaska and not useable for much of anything.




              KJ:  I thought I'd go back to your figures again, since it's not a very mathematically sound way of looking at it. Let's turn it around, and say how much would the average (mean) household pay in taxes if all current taxes were put to land, ignoring the actual assessable land value, but apportioning it to each property's value relative to all other property.
              First of all, it's best to do like for like, plugging the deficit is a separate debate from LVT or not. According to www.usgovernmentrevenue.com, estimated total tax take in 2012 is 5 tr. USD.
              Divided by 115 m households, that's 43K per household. Now let's say that 20% is payable by businesses. I'm ignoring whether corporations owns residental land or not, it is still embedded in rent paid by tenants. And I don't believe the vast expanses of farmland, forests, prairie etc., are particulary valuable, but there are some resource rents. But anyway, if I'm wrong, the figures would just work in our favour. That brings the figure down to 35K per household. That's the mean, and the median would probably be slightly lower. Now let's say we spend 25% of the total tax take on UIE's on a per capita basis, which isn't that generous IMO. That would come out at 3,3K per capita with 304m people. So a 4 person family living on the average property would pay net 21,8K. And the same family living on a property valued at around 60% of the mean would be in the clear. Add/deduct your excise taxes or other acceptable revenue of choice for more spending/less LVT.

              --
              Very truly yours

              John D. Kromkowski
              6803 York Road -- Suite 207
              Baltimore, MD 21212

              Tel     410-377-6248
              Fax     410-372-0624
              Mobile  443-271-0500

              This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.

              If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving  in any manner.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.