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

Re: Marx, Engel and Morris on George

Expand Messages
  • walto
    As you say, an LVT would take care those who might be called the investor-donors, and as Roy says an UIE or CD would provide something the inexact return
    Message 1 of 87 , Dec 13, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      As you say, an LVT would take care those who might be called the "investor-donors," and as Roy says an UIE or CD would provide something the "inexact return" you're looking for. Any corruption of the tax collecting authority is also partially handled (by eliminating all the other taxes and reducing the LVT revenues they get to play with).

      IMO, the rest should be addressed through democratic reforms.

      W

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Scott on the Spot" <ssbaker305@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" calhorn@ wrote:
      > >
      > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@>
      > wrote:
      > > > > The point is that landowning, whether private or public, removes
      > people'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
      > landowners.
      > > >
      > > > I think you here downplay the crucial importance of recovering rent
      > for public purposes that is now pocketed by private landowners.
      > >
      > > That was not my intention, as I agree that recovery of publicly
      > created land rent for public purposes and benefit is even more crucial
      > than restoring the individual right to liberty through a UIE (or, second
      > best, a CD).
      > >
      > > The context of my statement was a rejoinder to Scott's statement that,
      > "the same result applies whether the Land is owned by individual
      > 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.
      > >
      > > > Remember, in the absence of a UIE, those public purpose might
      > include a Citizen's Dividend which, as you have often conceded, could do
      > nearly what a universal personal exemption would do ("next best").
      > >
      > > Right. My point would still be that even those who do nothing to
      > create rent are still part of the public that is being excluded from the
      > good land, and would and should get their UIEs/CDs as compensation for
      > the abrogation of their rights to liberty.
      > >
      > > > I too endorse a UE based on your arguments, but I think one must be
      > careful not to derogate the LVT in any case.
      > >
      > > I agree, and apologize if what I said was in any way interpretable as
      > derogating LVT. I did not think it was.
      > >
      > > > Tremendous harm is done by the private monopolization of natural
      > resources. For one thing, it has required harmful taxes on productivity
      > to make up the lost revenue.
      > >
      > > Absolutely. Rent recovery is the priority. My point has only been
      > that rent recovery alone does not entirely balance the equation, and nor
      > 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
      > >
      >
    • Harry Pollard
      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
      Message 87 of 87 , Dec 30, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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 Group 
        The Henry George School
        of Los Angeles
        Tujunga   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.


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