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

Re: Uphill struggle

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... If everyone who owned a vintage car were being given $10K/yr out of other people s taxes for doing nothing, and we said, Wait a minute, that doesn t make
    Message 1 of 32 , Jan 21, 2013
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" wrote:

      > There's no reason to be anti-*homeowner*.

      If everyone who owned a vintage car were being given $10K/yr out of other people's taxes for doing nothing, and we said, "Wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense, we shouldn't be giving people all that money just because they own vintage cars," we would be accused of being "anti-vintage car owner."

      > People owning their home is good,

      Some countries seem to do just fine with low rates of homeownership.

      > 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.

      The worst is when they point to all the data showing that homeowners are better off, healthier, live longer, have higher net worth, more education, blah, blah, blah, and then say, "Look at all the benefits of homeownership; we should do more to encourage everyone to own their own home." Yeah, give people a big enough subsidy and damn right they'll end up better off.

      > And rising house-prices are seen as a sign of a healthy economy in this certain strain.

      Yes, if asset prices rise, that's "a booming economy," and cause for celebration. If wages rise, that's "inflationary," and cause for cutting wages, hours, and jobs.

      > 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".

      Yes, the real caste system is very apparent. No matter how much money you make, or how respectable your job, if you are a tenant, you are of lower caste than all homeowners: "It's your own fault you didn't jump through all the hoops and pay all your bills on time to keep your credit rating up and work hard enough for long enough to get ahead so shut up and get back on the treadmill."

      > 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.

      It's very difficult to say how beneficial homeownership would be if it were not so heavily subsidized. There is evidence that it leads to reduced labor mobility and thus lower productivity.

      > 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 :)

      In a sense we can hand some of the tax bill (as much of it as they can easily afford) to banks by removing their privilege of creating debt money and just having government spend fiat money into circulation, just as surely as we can hand the tax bill to landowners by removing their privilege of pocketing rent. It's not necessary that the banks actually make out checks to the public treasury, as landowners would. If their income is reduced and government gets to spend the same amount of money instead, the effect is equivalent.

      -- 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
        --- 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.


        > 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.