- ... Happy new year! What has to be put across is tat land is not owned by the landowners . It owned by the state. Title gives you a set of rights. That s all.Message 1 of 32 , Jan 21, 2013View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" wrote:
>Happy new year!
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:07 PM, roy_langston wrote:
> > > **
> > I raise these points because there is oft a strain of anti-home ownerism
> > that crops up here. I don't quite get it.
> There's no reason to be anti-*homeowner*. People owning their home is good, but there is also a very strong strain in the general public that is Homeownerist. Homeownerists demand that there is to be in place special treatment of people owning their own homes in the tax and benefit system. Homeownerist will demand things such as interest deductions, exemption from primary residence in calculating eligibility for certain means-tested benefits (care-home coverage for example), and programmes to boost homeownership beyond the rate that would occur otherwise. Capital gains tax relief is another prominent example. And rising house-prices are seen as a sign of a healthy economy in this certain strain.
> There is also another aspect, that is not distinctively homeownerist per se, but heavily overlaps with it and may be a symptom and is characterized by a certain contempt for people who rent, and nagging to their fellow man to get on the "ladder". OTOH, within that very same strain is also very much a strong sense of ownership, joy, interest in improvements, "my home is my castle" sort of thing, which is perfectly understandeable, and probably a force of good, the very same that makes private ownership of businesses more successfull than the opposite.
> > Yet there are land taxers who think
> > that generically detaxing so called interest without regard to it true
> > origin is a good thing.
> > Things are just more complicated sometimes.
> A system that taxes interest on the basis of source, would indeed be complicated. Collect land rents, and no such interests would be taxable on the part of the bank, and this is the easier route ofcourse. I can understand the political attractiveness in handing the tax-bill to a bank, but it's a complication :) There is lots of schemes that collects land rents some way or another; taxation of imputed rents were pretty common in many countries in Europe until a decade ago, and at least it had some merit in acknowledging that imputed rents are income.
> Happy new year to everybody by the way.
What has to be put across is tat land is not owned by the "landowners". It owned by the state. Title gives you a set of rights. That's all.
The "house is my castle" has to be shot down, as this means the land under is 100% theirs. BTW, the term "An Englishman's home is his castle", came about when bailiffs were stopped from entering a house. Note is says "home" not "land". It is very difficult in the UK to enter someone's home for debt, etc - owning or renting. A landlord cannot enter if a tenant does not want him in the house. If he enters the police will eject him.
- ... 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 halfMessage 32 of 32 , Jan 24, 2013View Source--- 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