- ... As long as the LVT rate exceeds the economic growth rate, speculation will not be an issue because appreciation will not cover the tax. Depending on theMessage 1 of 111 , Nov 15, 2012View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> So we have to balance to keep LVT high enough to discourage land speculation.As long as the LVT rate exceeds the economic growth rate, speculation will not be an issue because appreciation will not cover the tax. Depending on the discount rate and other factors, an even lower LVT rate may suffice to end speculation.
> This may result in the gvmt collecting too much tax.As land rent is just the willingly paid market value of the economic advantage obtainable by the landholder, government could only be collecting too much land rent in the sense that people would be deprived of their liberty to use land without just compensation, and the least productive would then not be able to afford adequate access to opportunity. As long as government spending is efficient enough to yield at least as much in additional rent, there is no reason government should not recover that rent and spend it: nobody loses thereby, and society gains desirable services, infrastructure and amenities. Unlike our current taxes, LVT does not impose any trade-off between government spending and private production and consumption.
> This is where the citizens dividend comes into pay in giving it back.There is nothing to "give back" (other than the equal human right of liberty to use land), as land rent is an amount willingly paid for value received. The UIE is more effective than a CD in ensuring that people's rights to liberty are restored and they get adequate access to land and opportunity, as the UIE cannot be lost, stolen, squandered, or applied to any other purpose.
> But, always a but, would a citizens dividend be politically manipulated as the planning laws are?Hard to see how, if it is universal.
> The population may become accustomed to this annual citizens divided windfall.Which is one reason they should instead become accustomed to always having the liberty to use land and access opportunity.
> Gvmts can then keep LVT too highLVT can't be too high, as explained above. The UIE could be too low, but making it equal to half the median land value used per person makes any such problem self-correcting.
> to gain the vote by shouting how they gave a wonderful dividend (payable just before Christmas of course) in the past 5 years. People are short sighted.But to a large extent, people being able to access lots of good opportunities while using only half the median land value used (or, second best, getting an equivalently generous CD) is a good indication that the government is governing well, and spending its revenue honestly, wisely, and efficiently. It SHOULD be able to campaign on such a record.
> Any citizens dividend should be paid back weekly or monthly. The expectation of a big annual cheque can be used by the cunning.As most people pay their rents, mortgages and property taxes monthly, the UIE should be monthly (though with computer technology, it could be made weekly). A CD could be monthly or weekly, and certainly should not be annual.
-- Roy Langston
- JDK, Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the fittest just describes those who have survived. With regard to your last sentence –Message 111 of 111 , Nov 23, 2012View SourceJDK,Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species. There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy). It also drove the communists crazy too. Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?Jdk
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.
Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.
Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.
One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.