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

Re: Land value UK

Expand Messages
  • John
    ... A block of 100 apartments. Market rental is £100 per week. That is £10,000 per week. Only half are let and the rent upped to £200 per week because of
    Message 1 of 46 , Dec 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@> wrote:
      >
      > > The monopolist achieves his high return by refusing
      > > to supply demand.
      >
      > That is simply false. He is happy to supply
      > all the demand there is at his most profitable price.

      A block of 100 apartments. Market rental is £100 per week. That is £10,000 per week. Only half are let and the rent upped to £200 per week because of demand. That gives £10,000 per week. But the maintenance costs are half as much as only half are being used. The value of the apartments, let and unlet, still keeps rising. So the freeholder is onto a winner by restricting supply.

      I doubt whether this tactic would work too well selling Capital goods like Smart phones. Although restricting supply of capital goods to ratchet up prices is common enough.

      > > In the case of land, or more specifically
      > > locations, he has the added
      > > advantage that people must have access or
      > > they do not survive. So he can
      > > run up the Rent until paying more is impossible
      > > for the prospective user.
      >
      > No, he can't, or he would, and he doesn't.
      > If he tries to charge more than the economic
      > advantage his location affords the user, the
      > user will just go elsewhere.

      I think the two of you agree on that point.

      > No. The pressure on wages comes from the Law of Rent,
      > which implies that in an advanced and densely populated society,
      > those at the bottom -- i.e., those least able to use land
      > productively -- are relegated to sites where their wages are
      > well _below_ subsistence.

      Those in the subsistence levels tend not to own land and are pushed to the margins in low rent accommodation. In living on the land he is using it productively. Residential land in prime locations gives the advantage of higher wages, amenities, transport access, etc. If your skills can return higher wages of course. Commercial land is different. In prime locations it gives access to transportation, for people and goods, and skilled labour. In the margins transport is poor, or slow, and skills are harder to get, so wages are lower, but he pays less rent for his premises.
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.