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

Re: Semantic warfare or Horses for courses

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... Thank you for admitting that when you have claimed I made various ridiculous statements, you have been making stuff up. ... No, because landowners have no
    Message 1 of 229 , Mar 29, 2013
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

      > @RL Not wishing to quote your words back at you and be accused of making them sound ridiculous by making stuff up,

      Thank you for admitting that when you have claimed I made various ridiculous statements, you have been 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?

      No, because landowners have no say in setting land rents, which always "cover" the land tax in any case because the land tax IS the rent.

      > And "high rents are not a bad thing" ,so if rents go up, even to cover the LVT,

      Rents can't "go up to cover the LVT," because the LVT just goes right up with them. It is instead, rather, the LVT that goes up to recover the rents.

      > this indicates that the area is getting more prosperous?

      More or less. Rent measures economic advantage or desirability, so it could just mean that the area is getting more crowded, as the Law of Rent makes clear.

      -- 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.