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

Re: [LandCafe] Re: Land value UK

Expand Messages
  • John David Kromkowski
    GDP was first developed in 1930s so hardly JS Mill. And Mill proposed that growth was not unlimited. He could be right. Who knows? But your link
    Message 1 of 46 , Nov 28, 2012
      "GDP" was first developed in 1930s so hardly JS Mill.   And Mill proposed that "growth" was not unlimited.  He could be right. Who knows?  But your link between GDP and Rent, suggests that rent will eventually stabilize -  is that georgist theory?  I don't know.

      You're the big empiricist.  Where is the empirical support for your theory that GDP (which we don't know back to 1910) is a better index for rent than inflation (which we do know back to 1910.)  You may well be right, but the source you cite is no source.



      On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM, roy_langston <roy_langston@...> wrote:

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
      > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:49 PM, roy_langston <roy_langston@...>wrote:
      > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@>
      > > wrote:
      > >
      > > > What about total land value in 1910 times inflation rate for the last 100
      > > > years (http://www.whatsthecost.com/historic.cpi.aspx ) as a
      > > guestimation!
      > >
      > > RL: The most accurate index of rent is to GDP, not inflation.,_.___
      > >
      > SOURCE?

      JS Mill, Principles of Political Economy. This fact is widely known and not controversial in geoist circles, as it was to classical economists including Henry George.

      > I was just offering a means of a back of the envelope guestimation from 1910 Finance Act figures.

      Yes, and I was just offering a far better one.

      -- Roy Langston

      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.
    • roy_langston
      ... It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch for
      Message 46 of 46 , Dec 1, 2012
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:

        > There is an enormous amount of urban land of all values which is presently held out of use at rack-rent (or higher) prices.

        It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch for decades. As long as the long-term economic growth rate exceeds the tax rate, owning land increases the owner's net worth, so there is no reason to take a chance by permitting productive use.

        > Such holdings would become
        > available to producers and other users with adoption of full land Rent
        > collection and Rents would topple to a point where they would accurately
        > reflect the advantage provided by the surrounding population.

        Rents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.

        > You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen to
        > call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.

        It's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.

        > Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief that
        > with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.

        No, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.

        > I don't know where you got your land-value taxation ideas from, but you treat it as simply a good way to tax.

        My UIE proposal proves that claim false. LVT is essential to equal human rights.

        > The real intention of collecting Rent
        > (popularly, land-value taxing) is to produce a genuine equality of
        > conditions for all, replacing the present rigged economy which condemns the
        > less able to poverty and the more able to a lifetime of paying rack-rent.

        No, the real intention is to restore the EQUAL RIGHTS of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, relieving the poverty of the less able by ensuring they have free, secure access to economic opportunity, and enabling the more able to rise as high as their productive contributions will carry them by relieving them of the burden of supporting the greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass in exorbitant luxury. I am much more aware of that intention than you, as your opposition to my UIE proposal shows.

        > The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towards
        > 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
        > But, you probably know that.

        I do indeed.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.