Re: Legitimate LVT criticism
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> "So it might take the UIE's of 10 or 20 people (quite a difference BTW)It depends on the local market.
> living in one typical SFD house to eliminate its LVT liability."And you are expecting people to vote for this: people whose LVT liability ,as of now, is zero?No, I gave up expecting rationality and honesty long ago. I do, however, _intend_ that people should vote for it, and regard it as part of our task to help them understand _why_ they should vote for it.
> A 5% or 10% tax discount (itself discounted by equivalent House Price Inflation consequent on the scheme)?It's not a percentage tax discount, it's a uniform exemption amount. I thought I had made that clear. And any consequent house price inflation (which I have seen no reason to think would be significant) will also increase the exemption amount.
> This is not the you can live anywhere you like Nirvana trumpeted in vague but stertorian calls for LIBERTY .So now that you understand that the UIE is not too big, your objection becomes that it is too small? Is there a Goldilocks amount of UIE that would be just right for you?
What I have said is that the UIE affords everyone free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available good land to sustain themselves economically. The UIE affords everyone the opportunity to live pretty much anywhere they like -- but not to use however much of the land there they like. The more desirable the area you want to live in, the less land the UIE will give you free tenure on. In most good locations, it would only pay for the small fraction of land associated with sharing a modest apartment.
> 5% or 10% Liberty !That is a rather misleading characterization of what I have said.
> That'll get them out on the street.If you have an idea that will get people out on the street demanding LVT, let's see it.
> Also you keep calling my replays of you remarks disgraceful but you are banging on about the significance of biology again in your latest (as of this moment,it has probably been superseded by several as I write).We can talk about that if you like, but you have so far seemed disinclined to engage the issues, preferring to just call names.
> Land taxation is facing some kind of existential crisis (like capitalism itself )and we are wasting time on this hobbyist's model fantastically constructed out of match sticks .So I take it you are unable to muster any actual criticism. Thought not.
> Better to get behind the mansion tax but campaign for it to be converted to high-end land values.(It was suggested by closet land taxer and Cabinet Minister Vince Cable in the UK and enjoys big percentage approval rates in opinion polls)So, how does taxing high-end land values differ from taxing land values and extending a UIE? Other than being less fair, less efficient, and more complicated, that is?
-- Roy Langston
- --- 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