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

Re: Legitimate LVT criticism

Expand Messages
  • k_r_johansen
    ... I think that s a perfectly sensible proposition. I believe several countries limits the amount of child tax deductions/benefits you can have. But it
    Message 1 of 199 , Feb 26, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
      >

      > Because babies never need their own plots of land, 17-year-olds might.
      >
      > Also, following up on David's Reed's points, I also think there should be a cap on partial UIEs (those given to parents of 8-year-olds, e.g.), just as in the U.S. income tax there's a cap on the number of personal exemptions. Again, it's arbitrary, and should be based on estimations of utilities, but if I were king, I'd allow the partial "kid" exemptions to no more than 3 or 4 children. But, of course, everybody should get the whole deal he/she comes of age.
      >
      > W
      >

      I think that's a perfectly sensible proposition. I believe several countries limits the amount of child tax deductions/benefits you can have. But it depends on what benefits you are replacing, if you are replacing benefits.
      A full share may be worth a lot less than the current maternity benefits for example. My approach would be to roughly estimate the current system of publicly run income smoothing schemes in variations of LVT revenue shares. You might get a full share at birth (to emulate maternity pay), then reduced to a partial share per child after a year or two, accounting for the cost of childcare/school vouchers or provision given out. And any amount of direct benefits to children would be limited to a total amount of one full share per household.
      Pensioners ought to be given double shares or more, to emulate pensions. I agree with the proposition that the reason for the UIE/CD is based on a right. But being pragmatic should be allowed, and will be the political reality anyway.

      Kj
    • walto
      ... Right. Both almost surely true. ... And the truths find there way in there too! W
      Message 199 of 199 , Mar 5, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- 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?
        >

        Right. Both almost surely true.



        > "A sick man dreams nothing so dreadful that some philosopher isn't saying it." -- Marcus Terentius Varro
        >
        > -- Roy Langston
        >


        And the truths find there way in there too!

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