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

Re: Hello from new subscriber

Expand Messages
  • k_r_johansen
    ... If I, a non-corporate owner occupier, sell my house, I am able to command a price over and above the costs of rebuilding a similar house. If I decide to
    Message 1 of 50 , Jan 30, 2013
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski wrote:
      >
      > I just not willing to buy onto the idea that "homeowners are privileged in
      > their function as landowners as well as any other landowner", so long as
      > the homeowner is not using more than his fair share.
      >

      If I, a non-corporate owner occupier, sell my house, I am able to command a price over and above the costs of rebuilding a similar house. If I decide to move and rent it out, I can command a price over and above the returns on the bricks and mortar (wood and nails in my case). Not only that, I can probably command a higher amount relative to purchasing power, if I wait a few years. Simple answer now, do I as a landowner, hold the privilege to collect land rents which I have done nothing to produce? Yes or no?
      Then a follow-up question, if I, even as an average homeowner, am just using the average share of land, how can it be that the first-home-buyer who I'd be selling to, has to pay me anything for the portion that is the land? He isn't using(owning) any land yet, he's just claiming his share, right?

      > *So, the generic complaint about against any private property in land is
      > kind of ideological off putting talk.* That's a dead end. Even George
      > realized that making a very nuance distinction between ownership and
      > possession, but basically come down to current system of private ownership
      > plus Land Tax equals justice. * To say that people can't own their home and
      > the land under it and around it - is pretty radical.*

      I love private ownership, of homes, cars, businesses, and yes, even land. I just want to tax rental values which aren't privately produced. Where are you getting at? If you are referring to the "you can't own land" in the philosophical sense, that's true, but in practice, ofcourse you can. You can do whatever you want with it, you just have to pay for it. Again, this is about the rhetorics and politics, you know this very well.

      > I don't have a problem with the state taxing land even of the homeowners on
      > moral grounds. The state can tax whatever it wants, subject to the proviso
      > that it can't literally tax someone to death. There are plenty of stupid
      > ways to tax. (But unlike some (I'd say fringe), I DO NOT think that taxing
      > wages or the fruits of capital is theft by the government.)
      >

      In a pragmatic way, I don't either. But I don't get that when it comes to homeowners, their plight and contribution to society as homeowners, not as workers, is so important that we must tippytoe around the fact that it's patently worse from every perspective taxing a worker on their wages, rather than unearned income from land. It doesn't make sense.

      Kj
    • David Reed
      Great:the usual suspects are at it again.The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.There is not a cigarette paper s width of difference between the consequences
      Message 50 of 50 , Jan 31, 2013
        Great:the usual suspects are at it again.The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
        There is not a cigarette paper's width of difference between the consequences of what they believe.JDK  supports  Rerum Novarum's literally ex cathedra judgement  that every family should own its own home: RL believes that large families should not pay any land tax.But still they wrangle. 

        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        From: roy_langston@...
        Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:28:17 +0000
        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Hello from new subscriber

         
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski wrote:

        > I just not willing to buy onto the idea that "homeowners are privileged in
        > their function as landowners as well as any other landowner", so long as the homeowner is not using more than his fair share.

        But he's not just using it. He's owning it, and as explained, there is no fair exclusive share of something he has no exclusive right to any of.

        He's also likely paying mortgage interest to a parasite, and will, qua parasite himself, collect the discounted present value of future publicly created land rents from a future homeowner.

        > A person living someplace is not the same as a corporate use of land is not
        > the same as the idle speculation holding land out of production. There are
        > distinctions among landowners. The primary one is that there are landowners
        > who have a place to live that is not more than a fair share (whatever that means) and there is everything else.

        I don't see what would make that the central distinction.

        > *So, the generic complaint about against any private property in land is kind of ideological off putting talk.* That's a dead end.

        In your opinion. IMO we have to start with fundamental truths, and if people find them upsetting, as slave owners also did, that's just tough. My extensive debates with anti-LVT people have convinced me that we can't cede that moral high ground and hope to prevail.

        > Even George
        > realized that making a very nuance distinction between ownership and
        > possession, but basically come down to current system of private ownership plus Land Tax equals justice.

        I think I've demonstrated that it doesn't without the UIE.

        > * To say that people can't own their home and the land under it and around it - is pretty radical.*

        Which fits with the fact that our reform is pretty radical.

        > I DO NOT think that taxing
        > wages or the fruits of capital is theft by the government.)

        The problem is that though it isn't theft legally, economically, it is. There is no economic difference between the exactions of government taxation of economic activity and those of a protection racket or landowner.

        > My point is only that if the land is for all of us, the "US" does not include corporations or businesses.

        I agree. Just as the rights to free speech, trial by jury, legal counsel, representation in government, habeas corpus, etc. are not for corporations or businesses.

        > And if the homeowner is not using more
        > than his fair share, I don't get how one justifies the taxation on the basis of the land is for every one.

        He's not letting anyone else use it.

        > The only way you justify the taxation
        > of land of homeowners not using more than there fair share is to agree that
        > governments have the right to tax for the common good subject to the
        > proviso that they can't tax someone literally to death (which is seldom truly the case).

        Non sequitur.

        > I really don't know what Roy means when he describes the right to liberty is the right to non-exclusive use of the land. I don't understand the concept.

        Think about how people used land before any of it was ever owned. That's the concept.

        > If I am standing in a location, how can that not be exclusive use
        > - no one else can stand where I am standing.

        That's just a physical fact, not a moral premise. When you move aside, someone else is free to stand there. But if you own it, they aren't.

        -- Roy Langston


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