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

RE: [LandCafe] Re: Semantic warfare or Horses for courses

Expand Messages
  • David Reed
    @RLNot wishing to quote your words back at you and be accused of making them sound ridiculous by making stuff up, can we make sure that I have got the recent
    Message 1 of 229 , Mar 29, 2013
      @RL
      Not wishing to quote your words back at you and be accused of making them sound ridiculous by making stuff up, can we make sure that I have got the recent ideas right (from both you and your new best friend KJ) :under your scheme tenants receive a cross subsidy to pay rents which have been inflated by owners to cover the land tax (which is only paid by owners).Is that it? And "high rents are not a bad thing" ,so if rents go up, even to cover the LVT,
      this indicates that the area is getting more prosperous? 

      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      From: roy_langston@...
      Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:54:46 +0000
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Semantic warfare or Horses for courses

       
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

      > In the midst of this prodigy of vituperation

      You mean restraint.

      > there appears to be an admission

      <sigh>

      > that Multiple Mortgage Tax Relief

      What?

      > and UIE are both forms of tax relief.

      LOL! This reminds me of the old Mad Magazine political smear speech: "My opponent admits his wife is a thespian who has even performed in front of paying audiences!"

      It seems our resident prodigy of thinking things through now opposes a UIE on the grounds that it constitutes equal tax relief to all resident citizens totalling perhaps 20% of rent -- while favoring instead the JS Mill version of LVT that dispenses tax relief exclusively to current landowners, and in the amount of _100%_ of current rent...

      > This is (painfully slow) progress.

      If only...

      > 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.

      Our resident prodigy of thinking things through now appears to imagine that when, say, a number of people pool their UIEs in order to afford higher mortgage payments by living in the same house, their occupancy of one house rather than two or three will somehow increase the quantity of houses demanded, thus increasing their prices (possibly the only market ever imagined where a decrease in quantity demanded leads to an increase in price).

      Alternatively, thinking things through might lead him to conclude that by having a lot of children, and thus getting a lot of UIEs in order to afford a higher mortgage, a couple can save so much money that having another child actually decreases their monthly expenditures on food, clothing, hot water, diapers, etc. -- possibly the only financial strategy ever imagined where increased consumption without increased income confers increased purchasing power.

      > You place great store on the UIE applying to tenants as well as mortgagees.If it did, it would put up rents.

      And confer the wherewithal to pay them. High rents are not a bad thing. Rent is simply a measure of economic advantage. That is why rents are high in all advanced industrial economies. I would fully expect rents to rise in a land rent recovery economy as economic activity there became more advantageous, and the desirability of living and working there soared above the level in surrounding areas.

      > But it does n't because LVT falls on owners : tenants don't pay the tax so don't get any exemptions.

      <sigh> They pay the rent. That's what they use their exemptions for.

      > All this brouhaha arose because you said MIRAS was per property

      No, it arose because YOU incorrectly said (in post #15530) that it was per person. I then (in post #15536) corrected your false claim, pointing out that it was per mortgage-carrying household. Perhaps you could quote the exact words, and provide the post number, where you incorrectly believe I said it was per property?

      No? Thought not.

      > and called me a liar for saying it was n't.

      No, I pointed out that your claim that it was per person was a fabrication on your part. I don't generally call people liars -- however often and consistently they lie.

      > You've now conceded that it was n't per property in the period I was talking about,

      I never said it was. That was just another fabrication on your part.

      > when you admit it was per mortgager

      It was per spouse-(maximum two)-in-mortgage-carrying-household.

      > So blackguard and fool you remain.

      Disgraceful. Even Harry has not plumbed such depths of dishonor.

      > UIE is a perk for big families.

      Such claims are just false, absurd, and dishonest. It's no more a perk for big families than the current UIE from income tax.

      > You don't appear to know what a spouse is : the term is predicated on marriage.

      No, it is not.

      > Claimants for this type of multiple tax relief had not to be married .

      Common-law spouses are still spouses.

      > I am also getting a tad irritated by being called not a proper Land Taxer.

      Imagine! And merely because you don't want to recover for public purposes and benefit any of the publicly created rent currently being given away to landowners in return for nothing!

      > I support the original and carefully argued form of Land Value Tax as formulated by JS Mill and his father.

      That wasn't the original form -- the physiocrats' "impot unique" beat it by a century -- and it wasn't particularly carefully argued.

      > I am less impressed with the later (almost certainly plagiarised) version by Henry George

      Evidence for your claim of plagiarism?

      > though it may well work as Harry describes (but the other side of a collapse of capitalism and the overthow of representative democracy which clings to the bribe of high house prices) . I believe this later version represents an insuperable barrier to getting any LVT at all implemented.

      We are all entitled to our own opinions of what is politically feasible. IMO the Mill version of LVT is unlikely to be more implementable than LVT+UIE+RPE, and is moreover certain to fail in the long term, as every election loss for its implementers (who won't be getting any significant revenue for their pains) will hit the Reset button on prices.

      > Never mind the HG tax with knobs on as dreamt up successively in Vancouver(presently in dire need of JS Mill action) .

      It needed the JS Mill tax 100 years ago. That is kinda the point.

      > Roy, in one stage of his continuous evolution, aka grasping at fresh straws, once came up with the JS Mill Tax which he called a stand- still tax or something.As soon as I pointed out its basic similarity, even congratualted him on expressing it so succinctly ,he dropped it!

      No, I did not "drop" it, because I never advocated it, merely described it.

      Your constant fabrications about what I have "admitted," "conceded," "dropped," etc. are tiresome and infantile. Unfortunately, they appear to be all you have to work with.

      -- Roy Langston


    • 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
        --- 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.