Re: [LandCafe] Re: Land value UK
- Roy,You replied to my contention as follows:HP: > These monopoly values would disappear with a full Rent collection, leaving us with ?.RL: No, they would not disappear, as the monopoly aspect would remain. They would be rearranged somewhat, but would be unlikely to change much in the aggregate.This is contrary to Georgist theory, but then you're not a Georgist which perhaps accounts for your inability to understand what happens in real life. You assume that with a full rent collection those at the bottom of the ladder living at subsistence levels would remain in this dire poverty. No wonder you come up with the peculiar idea of an exemption.Have a look at this news item about Phoenix.Nearly half the downtown lots in Phoenix are vacant. (Heaven knows how many hold slums.) People are working lots to produce food. If land everywhere was freed for use, people will find ways to earn a living on it – perhaps a pretty good living.Let's assume that Phoenix introduced the full collection of rent. Many of those empty lots would be abandoned by people who could no longer afford to keep them idle. Entrepreneurs of every kind would get to work on them.There would no doubt be a building boom and labor would be scarce.The higher rent downtown lots would offer the most profit and they would be filled first. In fact there would be a general tendency for people to move toward the desirable center. Less desirable lots toward the outskirts would be available at little or no rent. They would be marginal (and would set rents on more productive sites. .You replied:HP: > These monopoly values would disappear with a full Rent collection, leaving us with ?.
RL: No, they would not disappear, as the monopoly aspect would remain. They would be rearranged somewhat, but would be unlikely to change much in the aggregate.The fruits of monopoly arise from the monopolists ability to hold his supplies from the market forcing prices higher and higher.The landholder who must pay full rent on his holdings would rapidly go broke if he didn't put them properly to work.In the case of Phoenix, the introduction of the full collection of rent would produce a much more compact city with no unused lots. It would also ensure much available land with little or no rent. Plenty of opportunity for the poor to produce and enjoy their own homes.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243********************
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:28 PM, roy_langston <roy_langston@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> The land-values we now measure are monopoly rack-rents with not a little "collectibility" values added in.
The land market is always a monopoly market, and land rent is always a monopoly rent. Rack-rent is a different phenomenon: charging tenants rent for fixed improvements they have made themselves.
> These monopoly values would disappear with a full Rent collection, leaving us with ?.
No, they would not disappear, as the monopoly aspect would remain. They would be rearranged somewhat, but would be unlikely to change much in the aggregate.
-- Roy Langston
- --- 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 becomeRents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.
> 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.
> You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen toIt's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.
> call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.
> Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief thatNo, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.
> with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.
> 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 RentNo, 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.
> (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.
> The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towardsI do indeed.
> 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
> But, you probably know that.
-- Roy Langston