## Re:Total land rent?

Expand Messages
• ... 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 1 of 23 , Nov 15, 2012
--- 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
• 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 2 of 23 , Nov 16, 2012
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.