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

Re: Uphill struggle

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... I doubt the more liquid market would make up for the reduced commissions, and I believe a lot of realtors use their positions of special market knowledge
    Message 1 of 32 , Jan 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski wrote:
      >
      > I think you might want to as Josh Vincent about this. I'm pretty sure that
      > the realators support LVT in PA and Philly in specific, because it tends to
      > get more properties in the active market and off the idle sidelines.

      I doubt the more liquid market would make up for the reduced commissions, and I believe a lot of realtors use their positions of special market knowledge to speculate in land.

      > I once made a suggestion to a georgist board that board members ought to
      > declare openly to the board how much land value they own. met with silence and crickets chirping.

      There's nothing wrong with geoists owning land -- it's just sheer financial self-defense. It's permissible to kill in self-defense, so it should be permissible to own land in self defense. And geoists have the economic understanding to be successful land speculators if they want to go that route. But not being willing to disclose how much land they own rings alarm bells for me.

      -- Roy Langston
    • roy_langston
      ... Yes, and even VACANT residential land. ... Which wouldn t get UIEs. ... So their UIEs would surely cover their LVT. ... Yes, but the suggested UIE of half
      Message 32 of 32 , Jan 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski wrote:

        > KJ: "Most of the land value is in residental properties."
        >
        > JDK: This is a bit confounding. Because that it includes landlords and idle speculators who are even leasing the properties.

        Yes, and even VACANT residential land.

        > 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" would
        > 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.

        Yes, 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.

        > 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 make
        > the economy better (especially if it is thrown in the sea - sorry Harry).

        Probably not if it is thrown in the sea -- or spent on bombing foreign countries -- but otherwise, yes.

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