Re: Uphill struggle
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> What has to be put across is tat land is not owned by the "landowners". It owned by the state.IME that is a very dangerous claim and not a defensible one. If land can be owned by the state, it can be owned by individuals -- sold to them by the state or otherwise. So what _really_ has to be put across is that there is no way for land rightly to become property in the first place, not an individual's, society's, the state's, or anyone else's. The state's role is merely that of a trustee administering possession and use of what all have equal rights to use in trust for those whose rights to use it are being abrogated, not that of an owner. This is crucial in refuting the inevitable charges of socialism, state ownership, communism, statism, blah, blah, blah.
> Title gives you a set of rights. That's all.That's a better way of looking at it. You make just compensation for the privilege of abrogating others' rights to use the land.
> 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.Well, we need the option of dispossessing those who do not make just compensation for what they are taking from society, so it's no different from missing your rent or mortgage payments: if you don't pay, you don't stay.
-- 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