Re: Marx, Engel and Morris on George
- It ought to be possible, using Von Thuman diagrams, future value
projections, and assessments to determine, to a reasonable degree, who
lives in a zone that should get something back as "part of the
community" from the LVT. I'm not that worried about the details,
because, frankly, we are so far from restoring even approximately what
the community should get from a LVT that even an inexact return would be
far better. For example, we have the Highline Park in NYC's Chelsea
neighborhood, which our Mayor Bloomberg says has increased "property"
values (read: land) by $2 billion, and soon to be more when phase 3 is
completed. The city contributed about half the cost of this great park,
overflowing in summer, and "donations" the other half. I put donations
in quotes because they are really thinly disguised investments (at least
to Georgists who know better), which return multiples of their amounts
over time, to the landowners in the neighborhood. Even Dianne Von
Feurstenburg and her husband, Barry Diller, who both own substantial
property in that neighborhood - a store and the headquarters of
Interactive Corp, respectively - will see a return on their $20 million
"donation." A LVT would even this out, and return the appropriate
amount, more or less, to those who live their and who would pay for such
a park through taxes, and other improvements.
I say the identity of the landlord doesn't matter IF there is no
plowback to the community of the amount collected in LVT, but just
private pocketing by a corrupt state. This is what generally happens in
the oil-cursed states. There, it is not LVT that is being collected,
but oil revenues, which OUGHT to be considered a form of LVT and put to
use for the community that owns the oil rightfully.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" calhorn@ wrote:
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@>
> > > The point is that landowning, whether private or public, removespeople's liberty to use the land. Absent a UIE, that will reduce them
to offering their labor on any terms just to survive, whether rent is
recovered for public purposes and benefit or pocketed by private
> >for public purposes that is now pocketed by private landowners.
> > I think you here downplay the crucial importance of recovering rent
>created land rent for public purposes and benefit is even more crucial
> That was not my intention, as I agree that recovery of publicly
than restoring the individual right to liberty through a UIE (or, second
best, a CD).
>"the same result applies whether the Land is owned by individual
> The context of my statement was a rejoinder to Scott's statement that,
Landlords, or the Lord of the State, so long as the Rent is not returned
to those whose efforts created the value in the first place." Not
everyone helps create land's rental value, and not everyone whose
efforts create its rental value add equally to it. Even if we could
identify each person whose efforts create land value and how much of the
value each of them creates, returning that value to THEM does not answer
the issue, because EVERYONE's rights to use land are being abrogated,
and that abrogation requires just compensation. IOW, we should be
careful not to advocate a return of rent only to "those whose efforts
created the value in the first place," and not to everyone else, as,
Harry to the contrary, that does not solve the problem of the latter's
poverty and lack of access to economic and social opportunity.
>include a Citizen's Dividend which, as you have often conceded, could do
> > Remember, in the absence of a UIE, those public purpose might
nearly what a universal personal exemption would do ("next best").
>create rent are still part of the public that is being excluded from the
> Right. My point would still be that even those who do nothing to
good land, and would and should get their UIEs/CDs as compensation for
the abrogation of their rights to liberty.
>careful not to derogate the LVT in any case.
> > I too endorse a UE based on your arguments, but I think one must be
>derogating LVT. I did not think it was.
> I agree, and apologize if what I said was in any way interpretable as
>resources. For one thing, it has required harmful taxes on productivity
> > Tremendous harm is done by the private monopolization of natural
to make up the lost revenue.
>that rent recovery alone does not entirely balance the equation, and nor
> Absolutely. Rent recovery is the priority. My point has only been
would distributing the rent only to those whose efforts create it.
Compensation must be made not only FROM the beneficiaries of exclusive
land tenure but TO its victims.
> -- Roy Langston
- It all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader.Unfortunately, modern schooling isn't great at producing readers so material must be made simple for them. Which point doesn't throw out other writing which may be more complicated as it conveys more subtle directions..Harry********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> However, I suppose the short sentence is now
> the thing, which may or may not be an improvement.
Harry, tabloid newspapers use short sentences. People are familiar with that. So, you have to write to what they can easily understand. If they have to do double-takes they lose interest. It is that simple. Churchill realised that a long time ago. His books on WW2 and super easy to understand. The proof readers would highlight parts of the book(s) and he would override them. In the end they thanked him for teaching them how to write simple English.