Re: Legitimate LVT criticism
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...>
> The most glaring problem is a form of the old widow problem.The Danes defer LVT payment on sale of land or death.
Tons of people may not have ambitions to profit off land rent. BUT THEY DO whether they want to or not.
Currently if an old widow is living in a big old house that needs money spent to maintain the structure and services, in an area she can't afford to live in, she needs to sell up and move to a smaller place in another area. That is the same under LVT.
> Politically, you're just not going to pass a taxHow will LVT destroy the value of a major asset?
> that will utterly destroy the value of a major asset
> for millions of regular citizens.
Henry George never thought hard enough about the old widow bogey.
> The first thing is that, when one tries to makeWhere? Landowners do charge for the use of their land. They do not let you occupy it free. LVT does not propose replacing landlords with the state. It is better the state stays out of land as we see in HK with the warped land leasing system, which is open to corruption. There's no truth to it.
> the moral argument in favor of the LVT, skeptics
> will say "well, you're saying that landowners are
> charging everyone for use of the land now, but all
> you're doing is replacing them with the state."
The greatest argument for Geonomics, not LVT as such, is reclaiming "economic rent" which is simply reclaiming "economic freeloading", to pay for our essential public services, leaving free of income taxes. "economic rent" does not only come from land. I am no Georgist. Henry got it wrong on a few counts. The Single Tax was a loser and concentrating 100% on land another.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
>Right. Both almost surely true.
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
> > >
> > > So you are saying that the existence of the Flat Earth Society DOES make the spheroidal shape of the earth disputable?
> > My degree of confidence is roughly the same as that in my above judgment regarding your personality. Put it this way: is it possible I'm wrong about either the shape of the earth or your arrogance? Sure, I could be wrong about pretty much every proposition that seems obvious to me--that is the nature of human fallibility. But it's really, really doubtful in both cases.
> So you claim the earth's spheroidal shape is not only disputable, but about as disputable as your opinion of my personality?
> "A sick man dreams nothing so dreadful that some philosopher isn't saying it." -- Marcus Terentius VarroAnd the truths find there way in there too!
> -- Roy Langston