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

Rent

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Kj, Here - at last - is the piece on Rent I promised you. The other on collectibles will follow. It s a PDF file. Harry *********************** The Alumni
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 22, 2013

    Kj,

     

    Here - at last – is the piece on Rent I promised you. The other on ‘collectibles’ will follow.

     

    It’s a PDF file.

     

    Harry

     

    ***********************

    The Alumni Group

    Henry George School

    Of Los Angeles

    Tujunga  CA  91042

    (818) 352-4141

    ***********************

     

     

     

     

     

     

    From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of k_r_johansen
    Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 8:30 AM
    To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT criticism

     

     



    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
    >
    > It would appear that in the process of transmission ,something has disappeared from between KJ's first and second paragraph; the bit with the reasoning in it.

    That's a quite predictable response when you can't defend your position. A Citizens Income is a UIE is a Citizens income. Deductions and transfer are the same in the government expenditure balance sheet. It is not per house or a percentage of per-house value, it's per person, it cannot be capitalized into higher house-prices, and you've failed to tell how this could happen.
    So again, are you against transfers from the government to private persons over the budget?

    Kj

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@> wrote:
    >
    > >
    >
    > > Meanwhile in the real world,the Conservative Chancellor of UK has announced a massive, but thrown together ,State capitalist scheme to loan people most of the deposit money to get mortgages which even the Conservative Press is warning will create another housing bubble.The State will be on the hook for billions of pounds worth of mortgages in a provenly unreliable property market which even the boneheads of the British establishment are beginning to realise is the starting point of economic crises . (NP) At the very least, the Chancellor's plan needs backing,very urgently, with the JS Mill version of Land Value Tax that would stop any further house/land price inflation. (NP) Any exemptions to this emergency measure would be a destructive irrelevance.(There are proposals in the UK to exempt all residential land from LVT; its too late to discuss such luxuries.) <
    >
    >
    >
    > That's interesting David, I think I've heard you propose that before. For a minute there, it seems that you imply that yet another insane mortgage program currently on the way in the UK is somehow in the same line of what Roy and several of us are discussing.
    >
    > After you've implemented the JS Mill Tax mr Reed, would you then end all transfers to private persons? No pensions, no unemployment, no child benefit? Is the idea of a citizens income out of the question? Because, and I think I've also mentioned this before; It's THE SAME!
    >
    >
    >
    > Kj
    >
    >
    >
    > > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
    >
    > > From: roy_langston@
    >
    > > Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 05:30:01 +0000
    >
    > > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Semantics and welfare - formerly legitimate LVT criticism
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@> wrote:
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > > I suppose the personal exemption is a gift to the poor,
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > Harry supposes that incorrectly, as it happens, as many of the poor would have no taxable income anyway, and are therefore too poor to benefit by the personal exemption.
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > > Or perhaps it's an efficient way to remove a bunch of people from whom not much is likely to be collected.
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > That's a better reason, but still wide of the mark. A much better reason is to leave the poor's incentive to work intact; and an even better one is to avoid taxing those at the bottom of the income and wealth distributions into penury.
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > > I don't know what's in the minds of these people except they want
    >
    > >
    >
    > > > to collect enough to ensure they are paid.
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > That is admirably accurate: Harry does not know what is in the minds of the people who design, implement, and sustain the kind of taxes that have actually been brought into effect, and function more or less as intended.
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > > I suggest exempting everyone from paying any income tax at all.
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > It would be gratifying if Harry could find a willingness to answer Matt's perfectly clear and reasonable question.
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > -- Roy Langston
    >
    > >
    >

  • roy_langston
    ... AFAICT, most of it has been discussed here and refuted many times. And Harry, please trim your responses. -- Roy Langston
    Message 2 of 11 , Mar 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:

      > Here - at last - is the piece on Rent I promised you. The other on
      > 'collectibles' will follow.

      AFAICT, most of it has been discussed here and refuted many times.

      And Harry, please trim your responses.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Harry Pollard
      Declaring refutation doesn t make it so. Perhaps you should trim your responses. Harry *********************** The Alumni Group Henry George School Of Los
      Message 3 of 11 , Mar 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Declaring refutation doesn’t make it so.

         

        Perhaps you should trim your responses.

         

        Harry

         

        ***********************

        The Alumni Group

        Henry George School

        Of Los Angeles

        Tujunga  CA  91042

        (818) 352-4141

        ***********************

         

        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston
        Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:25 AM
        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Rent

         

         

        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:

        > Here - at last - is the piece on Rent I promised you. The other on
        > 'collectibles' will follow.

        AFAICT, most of it has been discussed here and refuted many times.

        And Harry, please trim your responses.

        -- Roy Langston

      • roy_langston
        ... Neither does denying it, sorry. I have identified the relevant facts and their logical implications that refute your claims. You have never provided any
        Message 4 of 11 , Mar 24, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:

          > Declaring refutation doesn't make it so.

          Neither does denying it, sorry. I have identified the relevant facts and their logical implications that refute your claims. You have never provided any kind of rebuttal to these facts, but merely repeated the same proved-false claims over and over again.

          > Perhaps you should trim your responses.

          I do. Perhaps you should try to find a willingness to know when you are in error, and not just reflexively resist correction like a recalcitrant child.

          -- Roy Langston
        • Harry Pollard
          I think you must really believe you refute things when you don t. We know you refute things because you tell us you do. I repeat - declaring refutation doesn t
          Message 5 of 11 , Mar 25, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I think you must really believe you refute things when you don't.

            We know you refute things because you tell us you do.

            I repeat - declaring refutation doesn't make it so.

            Harry

            **********************************************
            Alumni Group
            Henry George School of Los Angeles
            Box 655  Tujunga CA 91042
            818 352-4141
            **********************************************


            On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:19 PM, roy_langston <roy_langston@...> wrote:
             

            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:

            > Declaring refutation doesn't make it so.

            Neither does denying it, sorry. I have identified the relevant facts and their logical implications that refute your claims. You have never provided any kind of rebuttal to these facts, but merely repeated the same proved-false claims over and over again.

            > Perhaps you should trim your responses.

            I do. Perhaps you should try to find a willingness to know when you are in error, and not just reflexively resist correction like a recalcitrant child.

            -- Roy Langston


          • roy_langston
            ... Non-content ad hominem noted. ... No, because you can t rebut my refutations. ... I repeat: declaring non-refutation doesn t make it so. -- Roy Langston
            Message 6 of 11 , Mar 25, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard@...> wrote:

              > I think you must really believe you refute things when you don't.

              Non-content ad hominem noted.

              > We know you refute things because you tell us you do.

              No, because you can't rebut my refutations.

              > I repeat - declaring refutation doesn't make it so.

              I repeat: declaring non-refutation doesn't make it so.

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