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

Re: Semantic warfare or Horses for courses

Expand Messages
  • walto
    David, you re actually the biggest exemptionist of all, since you permanently exempt all value monopolized prior to the enactment of a gains tax. You just
    Message 1 of 229 , Mar 29, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      David, you're actually the biggest "exemptionist" of all, since you permanently exempt all value monopolized prior to the enactment of a gains tax. You just don't call your limitation an exemption.

      Your objections to Roy's much smaller (and partly, temporary) exemptions are thus akin to Harry's pride in keeping the pride of "ownership" for monopolizers, even though they'd pay considerably more for the privilege of monopolizing under his scheme than they would for exactly the same privilege under Roy's.

      In spite of Moses's plaint at the end of Schoenberg's opera, the words don't really matter as much as the things being talked about.

      W

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
      >
      > @KJ You seem to regard implementation as a distraction from the real business of this forum which in your mind is endlessly discussing Roy's ramshackle scheme. (NP)In the real world the British Chancellor is pouring State money into housing which even the right-wing press is worried will produce another housing bubble.In Cyprus the masters of the Economic Universe, a bunch of surly incompetents,is making leaving fugitive capital in the bank dicey so we can expect a tidal wave of hot money to look for a hedge against inflation in London property. (NP)In this emergency situation we should be calling for a hold-the- line Millite measure (and to stimulate the economy monetarily). Instead we bicker amongst ourselves on a you started it/ no you started it level .(RL definitely started it by hijacking the Legitimate LVT Criticism Debate with the usual preposterousness: the only legitimate criticism of lVT is that its never had a UIE!!)
      > (NP)Kj (or rather k_r_j,Whats with the random underlining of spaces ? A Langstonian affectation as well ) is determined to go down with the sinking Langstonian ship which is anyway heading in the wrong direction.He starts with saying that owners can unload their land tax onto their tenants, which is a straight Land tax heresy.He then extols the Langston scheme for making this tenant> owner transfer more practicable (with massive state intervention).Followed by a few swipes at famous names.( I used to think his insults of me showed an unwarranted sense of his own superiority but he disdains every established Economist in the book as well.) (NP) We have exemptionists /bubble enthusiasts in the UK ,some well-placed, who trail round Labour party conferences saying all houses below £2million should be exempted from LVT; only mansion tax houses should be subject to it. (NP) All this exemptionism is not only a distraction from the issues but is actually sabotage of our one chance of a breakthrough,which is staring us in the face but too many people are too up themselves to see it. (In the Uk we are teetering on the edge of a breakthrough but we are not getting the right support for the right direction of movement.) (NP) It says at the top : horses for courses. To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      > From: kjetil.r.johansen@...
      > Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:15:37 +0000
      > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Semantic warfare or Horses for courses
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@> wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Congatulations on a good Georgist joke over "seeing the cat"! A pity your other joke, the UIE ,is not so good. In the midst of this prodigy of vituperation there appears to be an admission that Multiple Mortgage Tax Relief and UIE are both forms of tax relief. This is (painfully slow) progress.Perhaps if you called UIE by a more accurate moniker : Multiple Land Tax Relief you would see the cat in this instance and concede that there is a strong possibility of ensuing house price inflation as multiple mortgage holders are exempted from land tax ,can afford higher mortgage payments and bid up prices. You place great store on the UIE applying to tenants as well as mortgagees.If it did, it would put up rents.But it does n't because LVT falls on owners : tenants don't pay the tax so don't get any exemptions.<
      >
      >
      >
      > LVT falls on owners economically, but it is ofcourse tenants who pays the whole bill. A hypothetical UIE can be forwarded to landowners as rent or a portion of it, and will then extuingish parts of or the whole LVT bill of the owner. If rents increase, it will be recouped by increased assessments. Even if everyone was a homeowner, you can identify increased ability to pay as increased rents through assessments from capital values, and also recoup that. You will have to do this even with a JS Mill tax, how else would it work?
      >
      > We have gone through all this before, you have previously admitted you were on uncertain ground, went on theorizing that using LVT as a base for a UIE would create a feedback loop, abandoned it and went on to Schmidelsky, Gesell and everything else, and then on political feasability. The latter is your ultimate objection, which is fine, but stop making up stuff.
      >
      >
      >
      > Kj
      >
    • roy_langston
      ... Very simply: a geoist economy will likely distribute exclusive tenure more widely (i.e., a larger fraction of the population will end up as direct
      Message 229 of 229 , Apr 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:

        > HP > Let's not pursue this. Ownership in a full rent collection economy is fine and harms no-one.
        >
        > RL: Not so. Once it is conceded that land is owned as the fruits of one's
        > labor are owned, how does one justify taxing one and not the other?
        >
        > In a Georgist economy, how on earth does ownership of land harm anyone, whereas "security of tenure", which you favor, doesn't?

        Very simply: a geoist economy will likely distribute exclusive tenure more widely (i.e., a larger fraction of the population will end up as direct landholders). But if people OWN land in a Georgist economy, they have a very good reason to VOTE AGAINST that Georgist economy, thus voting themselves a privilege of pocketing "their" land's rent.

        It is going to be monumentally difficult to implement a geoist economy. In fact, it may be the most difficult task that will ever be accomplished by human beings. It is therefore crucial that the implementation make it even more difficult to undo than it is to do.

        > You apparently see
        > no practical difference between security of tenure and ownership.

        OTC, because it so resembles leasehold tenure, I don't see how one can honestly call secure, exclusive land tenure in a geoist economy "ownership."

        > Neither the "fruits" nor land should be taxed. However, in a Georgist
        > economy, if your location benefits from the surrounding community, you will
        > pay that advantage back to them. This isn't a tax. It's a fee - you pay for what you get.

        It's true that unlike income tax or other taxes, land rent recovery is a voluntary, market-based, value-for-value transaction. It is the only possible way government can be made self-financing. But all that claiming "it's not a tax" will get is a popular perception of disingenuousness.

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