Re: Uphill struggle
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> Ex Liverpool and England footballer Robbie Fowler (I knew his Dad)There's a huge industry selling "Get Rich Quick in Real Estate" schemes in North America, too, especially the USA. It changes with the land market cycle, but never really goes away. Right now it's "Get Rich Quick in Real Estate Foreclosures." I've toyed with the idea of taking it to the next level, and just selling landowning on the basis of a frank appeal to greed and dishonesty:
> earned millions playing football. After he hung up his boots, he put his
> money into buying houses. He didn't understand land or whatever but knew
> "houses" made money for do doing nothing and little risk. His property
> portfolio is estimated at £28 million. He has set up a company
> teaching people how to make money in their sleep. This fuels the fire of wanting to earn something for nothing.
> Fowler says:"investing in property can give you the chance to earn money in your sleep."
> It is an uphill struggle to change the psyche of people when they see and suck in this sort of thing. They too can be like Fowler.
"The government has been subsidizing landowners and banksters at the expense of working people for centuries, and they're certainly not going to stop now. You already know you can't get anywhere by working and paying taxes: you're just on a treadmill. And you know the Donald didn't get to be a billionaire by working and paying taxes: he's on the escalator that the treadmill powers.
"Let's face it: you can't start a bank or become a top banker and get billions of dollars given to you for creating too much debt money and being stupid. You can either stay on the treadmill and continue to be robbed by landowners and mortgage lenders, or you can climb up on the landowners' escalator and be one of the robbers by buying land. Which one do you want to be? Sure, it might look like you'll have to spend 20 or 30 years as some mortage lender's debt slave, but eventually you'll have it paid off, and then you're on the escalator, home free. Those 20 or 30 years are going to pass anyway. At the end of them, do you want to still be on the treadmill, giving your hard-earned money to landowners for sitting around owning land?"
Make it really blatant and despicable -- i.e., just tell the truth about the relationship between producers, government, landowners and banks, and see how many people say, "Wait a minute, aren't you just promoting outright evil?"
"Well, yes, but the evil is already there anyway. I'm just saying, instead of continuing to be its victim, participate in it in self-defense. The government leaves us no other options but robbing or being robbed, so which would you rather be? Sure, there are always going to be people who can't get credit to buy land, or who don't want to be greedy and dishonest, or who think it's wrong to steal from working people. But frankly, those people are the suckers you'll be taking money from by owning land. Landowners are going to rob them anyway, so your only choice is whether you want to be one of the takers, or one of the stupid suckers who get taken. I'm just showing people how to join the takers."
-- Roy Langston
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski wrote:
> KJ: "Most of the land value is in residental properties."Yes, and even VACANT residential land.
> JDK: This is a bit confounding. Because that it includes landlords and idle speculators who are even leasing the properties.
> In Baltimore, 58% of the land value is controlled by the top 10% (all corps) of the land owners.Which wouldn't get UIEs.
> The bottom 10% (of those who even own land at all) control less than 1% of the total land value.So their UIEs would surely cover their LVT.
> In Maryland, the per capita land value is like 80K, so a "fair share" wouldYes, but the suggested UIE of half the median land value used by human persons would be more like $20K, maybe even less, so that only works out to at most $80K for a famly of four. Not too generous.
> be about 320K (maybe less if Walt doesn't kids are entitled to a per capita
> share - whatever -). Individuals are not using nearly that much land value.
> In the US, I would definitely dispute the theory that most of the land value is residential.If you are talking about location value only, most is definitely residential. If you want to include minerals, broadcast spectrum, water, etc., then no.
> The beef is about entities (corps or individuals) using more than the fair share of land without paying the LVT.Right.
> Taxing land stops the cycle of boom and bust, but does it actually makeProbably not if it is thrown in the sea -- or spent on bombing foreign countries -- but otherwise, yes.
> the economy better (especially if it is thrown in the sea - sorry Harry).
-- Roy Langston