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

Re: Patent the idea of LVT?

Expand Messages
  • walto
    Interesting suggestion. I think it might also be effective to attempt to monopolize the supply of water and/or air someplace where this is illegal. Maybe the
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 10, 2013
      Interesting suggestion.

      I think it might also be effective to attempt to monopolize the supply of water and/or air someplace where this is illegal. Maybe the righteous indignation would spread to the idea of monopolizing land.

      W

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel wrote:
      >
      > Why don't we try to copyright or patent the idea of "Annual Land Value Tax"?
      > When we are refused we could gain valuable publicity for LVT.
      > We do need to get LVT more into the public arena.
      > A recent opinion poll in the UK (conducted by MORI/IPSOS promoted by the
      > Professional Land Reform Trust and the Coalition for Economic Justice)
      > showed a majority against LVT but among those who had even heard of LVT
      > (and therefore presumably had given it some thought - even if only a
      > little) there was a majority in favour.
      >
    • Fred Foldvary
      ... LVT burdens only the landowners who have title at the time it is enacted. Anyone buying land after the transition has no burden, because the price of land
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 13, 2013
        > I thought the fixity of land's supply is what guaranteed LVT would ONLY burden landowners.  
        >-- Roy Langston


        LVT burdens only the landowners who have title at the time it is enacted.
        Anyone buying land after the transition has no burden, because the price of land has fallen,
        and the tax increase is offset by the decrease or elimination of the mortgage interest payment.

        After the transition, and for the future ever after, LVT has no future burden on anyone.

        > I don't think anyone is going to credit a tax that is claimed not to be a burden on anyone.

        After the transition, LVT has no burden, because of the nature of rent as a surplus.
        Surplus means the rent can be taken without burden.

        Fred Foldvary
      • walto
        ... With all due respect, the permanent replacement of all the oxygen in our atmosphere with ammonia would similarly create only a temporary burden. There
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 14, 2013
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Fred Foldvary wrote:
          >
          > > I thought the fixity of land's supply is what guaranteed LVT would ONLY burden landowners.  
          > >-- Roy Langston
          >
          >
          > LVT burdens only the landowners who have title at the time it is enacted.
          > Anyone buying land after the transition has no burden, because the price of land has fallen,
          > and the tax increase is offset by the decrease or elimination of the mortgage interest payment.
          >
          > After the transition, and for the future ever after, LVT has no future burden on anyone.
          >
          > > I don't think anyone is going to credit a tax that is claimed not to be a burden on anyone.
          >
          > After the transition, LVT has no burden, because of the nature of rent as a surplus.
          > Surplus means the rent can be taken without burden.
          >
          > Fred Foldvary
          >


          With all due respect, the permanent replacement of all the oxygen in our atmosphere with ammonia would similarly create only a "temporary burden." There might be some resistance nonetheless.

          W
        • Fred Foldvary
          ... What matters is whether a replacement is harmful or beneficial. The replacement of oxygen would be harmful, while the replacement of punitive taxes with
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 14, 2013
            > the permanent replacement of all the oxygen in our atmosphere with ammonia would similarly create only a "temporary burden."  
            >W


            What matters is whether a replacement is harmful or beneficial.

            The replacement of oxygen would be harmful,

            while the replacement of punitive taxes with LVT is beneficial.

            Fred Foldvary
          • roy_langston
            ... Yes, but how does that mean no burden on landowners? ... Mortgage interest is a separate issue that only applies to those carrying mortgages, not
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 14, 2013
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Fred Foldvary wrote:

              > > I thought the fixity of land's supply is what guaranteed LVT would ONLY burden landowners.  
              >
              > LVT burdens only the landowners who have title at the time it is enacted.

              Yes, but how does that mean no burden on landowners?

              > Anyone buying land after the transition has no burden, because the price of land has fallen,
              > and the tax increase is offset by the decrease or elimination of the mortgage interest payment.

              Mortgage interest is a separate issue that only applies to those carrying mortgages, not landowners per se.

              > After the transition, and for the future ever after, LVT has no future burden on anyone.

              But landowners at the time of enactment DO bear the burden, and they know it. That is very much our problem.

              > > I don't think anyone is going to credit a tax that is claimed not to be a burden on anyone.
              >
              > After the transition, LVT has no burden, because of the nature of rent as a surplus.
              > Surplus means the rent can be taken without burden.

              From what I understand, rent means it can be taken without _excess_ burden: i.e., unlike with other taxes, the payers are out no more than the government takes in. That's not the same as no burden.

              -- Roy Langston
            • walto
              ... I agree totally with that assessment, but I remind you that Pollyanna, in spite of her many fine qualities, never got a bill through a single legislative
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 14, 2013
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Fred Foldvary wrote:
                >
                > > the permanent replacement of all the oxygen in our atmosphere with ammonia would similarly create only a "temporary burden."  
                > >W
                >
                >
                > What matters is whether a replacement is harmful or beneficial.
                >
                > The replacement of oxygen would be harmful,
                >
                > while the replacement of punitive taxes with LVT is beneficial.
                >
                > Fred Foldvary
                >


                I agree totally with that assessment, but I remind you that Pollyanna, in spite of her many fine qualities, never got a bill through a single legislative body, anywhere in the world.

                The burden of a shift on certain current owners is quite real.

                W
              • Harry Pollard
                Fred and Roy, After the initial change, where many economic changes will take place, there is no burden on anyone using land. The user gets back from the site
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 15, 2013

                  Fred and Roy,

                   

                  After the initial change, where many economic changes will take place,  there is no burden on anyone using land. The user gets back from the site the amount he pays for it in rent. It’s a zero sum transaction.

                   

                  Harry

                   

                  From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston
                  Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:23 AM
                  To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Patent the idea of LVT?

                   

                   

                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Fred Foldvary wrote:

                  > > I thought the fixity of land's supply is what guaranteed LVT would ONLY burden landowners.  
                  >
                  > LVT burdens only the landowners who have title at the time it is enacted.

                  Yes, but how does that mean no burden on landowners?

                  > Anyone buying land after the transition has no burden, because the price of land has fallen,
                  > and the tax increase is offset by the decrease or elimination of the mortgage interest payment.

                  Mortgage interest is a separate issue that only applies to those carrying mortgages, not landowners per se.

                  > After the transition, and for the future ever after, LVT has no future burden on anyone.

                  But landowners at the time of enactment DO bear the burden, and they know it. That is very much our problem.

                  > > I don't think anyone is going to credit a tax that is claimed not to be a burden on anyone.
                  >
                  > After the transition, LVT has no burden, because of the nature of rent as a surplus.
                  > Surplus means the rent can be taken without burden.

                  From what I understand, rent means it can be taken without _excess_ burden: i.e., unlike with other taxes, the payers are out no more than the government takes in. That's not the same as no burden.

                  -- Roy Langston

                • Scott Bergeson
                  Quoting Harry Pollard on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:58:36 -0800: ___Harry____ Fred and Roy, After the initial change, where many economic changes will take place,
                  Message 8 of 11 , Feb 15, 2013
                    Quoting Harry Pollard on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:58:36 -0800:

                    ___Harry____
                    Fred and Roy,

                    After the initial change, where many economic changes
                    will take place, there is no burden on anyone using
                    land. The user gets back from the site the amount
                    he pays for it in rent. It's a zero sum transaction.
                    -----

                    IOW, roughly comparable to barring collection of gambling
                    debts, though that had better also apply to financial
                    institutions that lent beyond current value of improvements.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.