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

RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

Expand Messages
  • Paul Metz
    On Apr 1, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Roy Langston wrote: My experience is that LVT is bitterly opposed by people who are far from being the ruling elite. the majority
    Message 1 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On Apr 1, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Roy Langston wrote:

      My experience is that LVT is bitterly opposed by people who
      are far from being the ruling elite.
      the majority of victims themselves own land, and

      conseqently believe the system to be in their own financial
      interests.

      Hear, hear!

      SMITH, Jeffery J.
       
      This support is too quick for me. Why are these victims victims ? Are they real victims, then 
      we should know the quantitative studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any ?
      In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post studies available.
       
      I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than uninformed, selfperceived victims,
      educated by the uninformed mass press.  
       
      Paul Metz  
    • Wetzel Dave
      The UK s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse s Botley area showed potential winners and losers. Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.

         

        Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?

         

        However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.

         

        1. The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
        2. The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
        3. It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

        i)                    the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

        ii)                  town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

        iii)                Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.

         

        See:

        http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

        Dave
        President, the Labour Land Campaign
        Tel: 020 7126 4200

        www.Labour Land.org

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
        To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
        Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

         

        Hello, All;


        Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:

         

        >Why are these victims victims?

         

        They are net losers under the system.

         

        >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?

         

        That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?

         

        >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.

         

        I doubt it.

         

        >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.  


        ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.

         

        -- Roy Langston

         


        Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.



        ***********************************************************************************
        The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

        If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

        This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
        ***********************************************************************************
      • Dan Sullivan
        ... That s a quibble. Offer to support rental assessments as the second step in reform, and reassert that the land value tax is a dramatic improvement either
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On 3 Apr 2007 at 18:31, Wetzel Dave wrote:

          > The UK's Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse's Botley
          > area showed potential winners and losers.
          >
          > Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who
          > initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply
          > a website reference?

          > However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the
          > valuation was applied: e.g.

          > 1. The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values - not
          > annual rental values.

          That's a quibble. Offer to support rental assessments as the second
          step in reform, and reassert that the land value tax is a dramatic
          improvement either way.

          > 2. The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.

          Another quibble. If the shift is incremental, assessment improvements
          can also be incremental.

          > 3. It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same
          > amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system
          > (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

          > i) the tax base would be bigger if land
          > (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had
          > mostly developed sites.

          The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
          revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
          increase with another revenue-equivalent increase. We have horror
          stories about politicians who tried to mix a shift with an increase and
          had the whole thing blow up in their faces.

          > ii) town centre sites would produce much
          > more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

          Town centers are a good thing. Botley should use LVT to get itself a
          town center.

          > iii) Botley's agriculture land is greenbelt
          > around Oxford and has no development/hope value.

          Then let the owners donate it as parkland. Otherwise, the fact that it
          commands a selling price belies the above assertion.

          -ds

          > See:
          > http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Cam
          > paign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf
          > Dave
          > President, the Labour Land Campaign
          > Tel: 020 7126 4200
          > www.Labour Land.org
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
          > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
          > To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
          > Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross';
          > 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik';
          > Wetzel Dave
          > Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none
          >
          > Hello, All;
          >
          > Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:
          >
          > >Why are these victims victims?
          >
          > They are net losers under the system.
          >
          > >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies
          > showing the winners & losers. Who has any?
          >
          > That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research
          > showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be
          > expected to experience from a switch to LVT?
          >
          > >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post
          > >studies available.
          >
          > I doubt it.
          >
          > >I suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than
          > >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass
          > press.
          >
          > ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here. I was
          > talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only
          > about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to
          > LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be
          > unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.
          >
          > -- Roy Langston
          >
          > _____
          >
          > Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people.
          > <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com> Go to Yahoo! Answers.
          >
          >
          > ***********************************************************************************
          > The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
          >
          > If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....
          >
          > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
          > ***********************************************************************************
          >
          >
        • Wetzel Dave
          1. Dan writes The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a revenue-neutral basis . I agree Dan. But Botley is not a local government
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

            1. Dan writes "The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
            revenue-neutral basis".

            I agree Dan.

            But Botley is not a local government jurisdiction. It is part of the Vale of White Horse District Council and Oxforshire County Council.  The local taxes in Botley are paid for services from both these authorities. (in fact the business rates, called the National Non-Domestic Rates or NNDR  are collected by the government and redistributed to local councils across the country).

            So to compare an LVT regime with the current system, you would need to compare the totals collected nationally under both schemes (yes, on a revenue neutral basis Dan) and because LVT would include the city of London and other great metropolises, because LVT would collect from empty and underused sites ignored by the current system and because LVT would collect from farmland (including farm fields with planning permission to develop), excluded in the UK from paying anything since the 1920s, the share to be paid by Botley under LVT nationally would fall.
             Therefore in this study it was a mistake to assume the share to be paid by Botley under LVT would remain the same and led to the team suggesting an increase in business contribution to LVT in order to create more residential winners.  This has been used by The British Treasury as an argument against LVT.

            2. Dan writes "Town centers are a good thing. Botley should use LVT to get itself a town center."

            So LVT would give us a town centre on every street corner? - I don't think so Dan!

            It is this Georgist "logic" that has given Annual Land Value Tax a bad name.
            Where would you build the town centre? THE only available space in Botley would be on the farmers' fields - massively unpopular as these are currently protected from development by the Oxford green belt.
            Where would the shoppers come from? The local population could not sustain a town centre so it would need to attract shoppers from Oxford city centre. As there is little public transport they would use cars to get to Botley.
            And of course, Dan's reasoning would apply to the other 100 or so small communities around Oxford, each with their own competing town centre - I don't think so.


            3. I wrote:  "iii) Botley's agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value." 
            Dan responds "Then let the owners donate it as parkland. Otherwise, the fact that it commands a selling price belies the above assertion."

            So all farmland is to become parkland?
            Where would we get our food from? 

            The selling price comes from the value of the land in agricultural use.
            That does not bely the assertion  that it has no development value nor hope of develoment value.

            Best Wishes,
            Dave

            Dave Wetzel
            Vice-Chair TfL
            Tel: 020 7126 4200
            --------------------------
             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Dan Sullivan <pimann@...>
            To: Wetzel Dave
            CC: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Tue Apr 03 21:55:57 2007
            Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

            On 3 Apr 2007 at 18:31, Wetzel Dave wrote:

            > The UK's Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse's Botley
            > area showed potential winners and losers.

            > Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who
            > initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply
            > a website reference?

            > However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the
            > valuation was applied: e.g.

            > 1. The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values - not
            > annual rental values.

            That's a quibble. Offer to support rental assessments as the second
            step in reform, and reassert that the land value tax is a dramatic
            improvement either way.

            > 2.    The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.

            Another quibble. If the shift is incremental, assessment improvements
            can also be incremental.

            > 3.    It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same
            > amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system
            > (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

            > i)                    the tax base would be bigger if land
            > (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had
            > mostly developed sites.

            The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
            revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
            increase with another revenue-equivalent increase. We have horror
            stories about politicians who tried to mix a shift with an increase and
            had the whole thing blow up in their faces.

            > ii)                  town centre sites would produce much
            > more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

            Town centers are a good thing. Botley should use LVT to get itself a
            town center.

            > iii)                Botley's agriculture land is greenbelt
            > around Oxford and has no development/hope value.

            Then let the owners donate it as parkland. Otherwise, the fact that it
            commands a selling price belies the above assertion.

            -ds

            > See:
            > http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Cam
            > paign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf
            > Dave
            > President, the Labour Land Campaign
            > Tel: 020 7126 4200
            > www.Labour Land.org

            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
            > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
            > To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
            > Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross';
            > 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik';
            > Wetzel Dave
            > Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

            > Hello, All;
            >
            > Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:

            > >Why are these victims victims?

            > They are net losers under the system.

            > >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies
            > showing the winners & losers. Who has any?

            > That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research
            > showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be
            > expected to experience from a switch to LVT?

            > >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post
            > >studies available.

            > I doubt it.

            > >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than
            > >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass
            > press. 
            >
            > ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was
            > talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only
            > about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to
            > LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be
            > unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.

            > -- Roy Langston
            >  
            >   _____ 
            >
            > Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people.
            > <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com> Go to Yahoo! Answers.
            >
            >
            > ***********************************************************************************
            > The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
            >
            > If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....
            >
            > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
            > ***********************************************************************************
            >
            >


          • Paul Metz
            Dave, Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by trial without (too much) error ? Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none
              Dave,
               
              Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
              Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off.
               
              Experience with ecological tax design has shown that ex-ante valuation is unneccessary, mostly academic and a loss of time.
               
              Back to Roy's earlier remark:
               
              >Why are these victims victims?<  They are net losers under the system.
              Which system do you mean, the current without or the new with LVT ? I had the new situation in mind and later read that you then agree with my comment.
               
              Paul Metz


              From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
              Sent: woensdag 4 april 2007 7:39
              To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
              Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
              Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

              See
              http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

              Or Ted Gwartney's website.
              Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

              However, as I understand it as a layperson:

              1. You imagine the finished building.
              2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
              3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
              4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
              5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
              6. You deduct the financing costs. 
              7. You deduct your desired profit.

              8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
              ie the land value.

              Best Wishes,
              Dave

              Dave Wetzel
              Vice-Chair TfL
              Tel: 020 7126 4200
              --------------------------
               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
              To: Wetzel Dave; 'Roy Langston' <roy_langston1@...>; 'Paul Metz' <metz@...>; 'Jeffery J. Smith' <jjs@...>
              CC: 'Mark Porthouse' <lists1@...>; 'Dan Sullivan' <pimann@...>; 'Eric Britton' <eric.britton@...>; 'Julien Gross' <geo.democracy@...>; 'Land Cafe Group' <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; 'Harry Pollard' <henrygeorgeschool@...>; 'Julien Gross' <julien.gross@...>; 'fernando scornik' <madrid@...>; 'Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1' <brianhodgson@...>
              Sent: Wed Apr 04 02:16:20 2007
              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

              Dave,



              What does the “residual method of valuation” mean?



              Harry



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

              Henry George School of Social Science

              of Los Angeles.

              Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

              818 352-4141

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



              From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
              To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
              Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



              The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.



              Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?



              However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.



              1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
              2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
              3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

              i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

              ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

              iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



              See:

              http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

              Dave
              President, the Labour Land Campaign
              Tel: 020 7126 4200

              www.Labour Land.org



              -----Original Message-----
              From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
              To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
              Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



              Hello, All;


              Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



              >Why are these victims
              victims?



              They are net losers under the system.



              >Are they real victims, then we should know the
              quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



              That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



              >In Philadelphia
              and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



              I doubt it.



              >I  suppose that -
              as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press. 


              ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



              -- Roy Langston

               

              ________________________________

              Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com



              ***********************************************************************************
              The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

              If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

              This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
              ***********************************************************************************

            • Edward Dodson
              Dan Sullivan wrote: The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dan Sullivan wrote:

                The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
                revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
                increase with another revenue-equivalent increase. We have horror
                stories about politicians who tried to mix a shift with an increase and
                had the whole thing blow up in their faces.

                Ed Dodson here:
                What if the consequences of a revenue neutral shift is a curtailment of
                public services? When in need of more revenue than is currently being
                raised, local government can try to obtain funds from a higher level of
                government, but this may not be easily achieved.

                If the need for more revenue is urgent, what are the best strategies to
                obtain widespread public support?
              • Edward Dodson
                Dave Wetzel wrote: However, as I understand it as a layperson: 1. You imagine the finished building. 2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value. 3.
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dave Wetzel wrote:

                  However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                  1. You imagine the finished building.
                  2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                  3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                  4. You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg
                  access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                  5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                  6. You deduct the financing costs.
                  7. You deduct your desired profit.
                  8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                  ie the land value.

                  Ed Dodson here:
                  This level of analysis may be what is used by housing developers. For
                  existing improved properties, the beginning point, I suggest, is to
                  determine replacement cost, then reduce the improvement value by a
                  calculation of actual depreciation of the structure and its systems.

                  Similar issues are associated with the replacement costs of depreciated
                  public infrastructure.

                  The difference between the above net values and the selling price that can
                  be obtained for the property (land+improvements) is what I would label as
                  the residual capitalized land value.

                  From the perspective of the developer, the decision to purchase the location
                  and construct a building will depend on whether the landowner's asking price
                  is too high for the developer to recoup all anticipated costs (costs that
                  include the developer's own fee). I see this as distinct from coming to land
                  value using the residual approach.
                • Dan Sullivan
                  ... Re-read sentence two above. ... Nor should it be in most cases. ... Explain the consequences of service cuts generally, and the consequences of service
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 5 Apr 2007 at 12:49, Edward Dodson wrote:

                    > Dan Sullivan wrote:
                    >
                    > The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
                    > revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
                    > increase with another revenue-equivalent increase. We have horror
                    > stories about politicians who tried to mix a shift with an increase and
                    > had the whole thing blow up in their faces.
                    >
                    > Ed Dodson here:
                    > What if the consequences of a revenue neutral shift is a curtailment of
                    > public services?

                    Re-read sentence two above.

                    > When in need of more revenue than is currently being raised,
                    > local government can try to obtain funds from a higher level
                    > of government, but this may not be easily achieved.

                    Nor should it be in most cases.

                    > If the need for more revenue is urgent, what are the best
                    > strategies to obtain widespread public support?

                    Explain the consequences of service cuts generally, and the
                    consequences of service cuts to land values particularly. Then let
                    someone else propose some other tax. The anti-tax people will
                    develop a big head of steam against that tax. Meanwhile, you are
                    waiting in the wings with data on how every complaint they make
                    about the other tax is either not true when using land value tax or is
                    less of a problem.

                    -ds
                  • Dan Sullivan
                    This is only one of many approaches to assessing, and it is not the favored method when other methods are available. First and foremost is comparable sales.
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      This is only one of many approaches to assessing, and it is not the
                      favored method when other methods are available. First and foremost
                      is comparable sales. Only when there are no comparable sales does
                      one have to resort to measures that involve speculation.

                      Also, replacement cost minus depreciation is only appropriate when
                      the current use is the full market use, or what assessors call the
                      "highest best use." If it is not, then the building is worth far less than
                      the replacement cost minus depreciation, and the land is worth more.

                      -ds

                      On 5 Apr 2007 at 13:16, Edward Dodson wrote:

                      > Dave Wetzel wrote:
                      >
                      > However, as I understand it as a layperson:
                      >
                      > 1. You imagine the finished building.
                      > 2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                      > 3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                      > 4. You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg
                      > access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                      > 5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                      > 6. You deduct the financing costs.
                      > 7. You deduct your desired profit.
                      > 8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                      > ie the land value.
                      >
                      > Ed Dodson here:
                      > This level of analysis may be what is used by housing developers. For
                      > existing improved properties, the beginning point, I suggest, is to
                      > determine replacement cost, then reduce the improvement value by a
                      > calculation of actual depreciation of the structure and its systems.
                      >
                      > Similar issues are associated with the replacement costs of depreciated
                      > public infrastructure.
                      >
                      > The difference between the above net values and the selling price that can
                      > be obtained for the property (land+improvements) is what I would label as
                      > the residual capitalized land value.
                      >
                      > From the perspective of the developer, the decision to purchase the location
                      > and construct a building will depend on whether the landowner's asking price
                      > is too high for the developer to recoup all anticipated costs (costs that
                      > include the developer's own fee). I see this as distinct from coming to land
                      > value using the residual approach.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Check in here via the homepage at http://landcafe.org
                      > To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                      > & please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                      > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Harry Pollard
                      Dave, The reason I asked about the “residual” was to confirm my worst fears. Well, perhaps not quite so dire a reaction – but close. Land residual
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Dave,

                         

                        The reason I asked about the “residual” was to confirm my worst fears.

                         

                        Well, perhaps not quite so dire a reaction – but close.

                         

                        Land residual appraisal is about the worst way we can find to determine the value of land.

                         

                        Building residual is OK.

                         

                        If an appraiser is trying to determine the value of a site under an improvement, he will certainly use the method you detailed to find it.

                         

                        In fact, a good appraiser will use every piece of data he can search out to come up with a value, and not the least he can contribute is his experience.

                         

                        I’ve mentioned the advantages of producing a land-value map of a city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same – hence the attractiveness of ‘street valuation’.

                         

                        If, on a given street, there are (say) 10 completely different improvements, you could go through your multiple calculations of improvements and likely get 10 different land residuals – even though the land-value of every site would be the same.   

                         

                        We should remember that a Rent collecting community would find relatively easy the valuation and publication of land values. But that won’t happen if we use land residual valuation.

                         

                        Harry

                         

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

                        Henry George School of Social Science

                        of Los Angeles.

                        Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                        818 352-4141

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

                         

                        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                        Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:39 PM
                        To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                        Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                         

                        See
                        http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20 pdf Henry%20Law.

                        Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                        Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                        However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                        1. You imagine the finished building.
                        2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                        3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                        4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                        5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                        6. You deduct the financing costs. 
                        7. You deduct your desired profit.

                        8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                        ie the land value.

                        Best Wishes,
                        Dave

                        Dave Wetzel
                        Vice-Chair TfL
                        Tel: 020 7126 4200
                        --------------------------
                         

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
                        To: Wetzel Dave; 'Roy Langston' <roy_langston1@...>; 'Paul Metz' <metz@...>; 'Jeffery J. Smith' <jjs@...>
                        CC: 'Mark Porthouse' <lists1@...>; 'Dan Sullivan' <pimann@...>; 'Eric Britton' <eric.britton@...>; 'Julien Gross' <geo.democracy@...>; 'Land Cafe Group' <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; 'Harry Pollard' <henrygeorgeschool@...>; 'Julien Gross' <julien.gross@...>; 'fernando scornik' <madrid@...>; 'Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1' <brianhodgson@...>
                        Sent: Wed Apr 04 02:16:20 2007
                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                        Dave,



                        What does the “residual method of valuation” mean?



                        Harry



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

                        Henry George School of Social Science

                        of Los Angeles.

                        Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                        818 352-4141

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



                        From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                        Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                        To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                        Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                        The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.



                        Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?



                        However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.



                        1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                        2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                        3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                        i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                        ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                        iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                        See:

                        http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                        Dave
                        President, the Labour Land Campaign
                        Tel: 020 7126 4200

                        www.Labour Land.org



                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                        Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                        To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                        Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                        Hello, All;


                        Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                        >Why are these victims victims?



                        They are net losers under the system.



                        >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing
                        the winners & losers. Who has any?



                        That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                        >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                        I doubt it.



                        >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more
                        than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press. 


                        ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                        -- Roy Langston

                         

                        ________________________________

                        Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com



                        ***********************************************************************************
                        The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

                        If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

                        This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
                        ***********************************************************************************

                      • Wetzel Dave
                        I agree with you Harry. I was describing the method used in Oxford. I do hope you have discussed your ideas with Ted G. Matt Harris and Henry Abbott. Best
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                          I agree with you Harry.
                          I was describing the method used in Oxford.
                          I do hope you have discussed your ideas with Ted G. Matt Harris and Henry Abbott.
                          Best Wishes,
                          Dave

                          Dave Wetzel
                          Vice-Chair TfL
                          Tel: 020 7126 4200
                          --------------------------
                           

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
                          To: Wetzel Dave; henrygeorgeschool@... <henrygeorgeschool@...>; roy_langston1@... <roy_langston1@...>; metz@... <metz@...>; jjs@... <jjs@...>
                          CC: lists1@... <lists1@...>; pimann@... <pimann@...>; eric.britton@... <eric.britton@...>; geo.democracy@... <geo.democracy@...>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; Julien.gross@... <Julien.gross@...>; madrid@... <madrid@...>; brianhodgson@... <brianhodgson@...>; hewabbott@... <hewabbott@...>; Tgwartney@... <Tgwartney@...>
                          Sent: Thu Apr 05 21:26:04 2007
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                          Dave,



                          The reason I asked about the “residual” was to confirm my worst fears.



                          Well, perhaps not quite so dire a reaction – but close.



                          Land residual appraisal is about the worst way we can find to determine the value of land.



                          Building residual is OK.



                          If an appraiser is trying to determine the value of a site under an improvement, he will certainly use the method you detailed to find it.



                          In fact, a good appraiser will use every piece of data he can search out to come up with a value, and not the least he can contribute is his experience.



                          I’ve mentioned the advantages of producing a land-value map of a city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same – hence the attractiveness of ‘street valuation’.



                          If, on a given street, there are (say) 10 completely different improvements, you could go through your multiple calculations of improvements and likely get 10 different land residuals – even though the land-value of every site would be the same.  



                          We should remember that a Rent collecting community would find relatively easy the valuation and publication of land values. But that won’t happen if we use land residual valuation.



                          Harry



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

                          Henry George School of Social Science

                          of Los Angeles.

                          Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                          818 352-4141

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



                          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                          Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:39 PM
                          To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                          Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                          See
                          http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20 pdf Henry%20Law. <http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                          Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                          Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                          However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                          1. You imagine the finished building.
                          2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                          3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                          4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                          5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                          6. You deduct the financing costs.
                          7. You deduct your desired profit.

                          8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                          ie the land value.

                          Best Wishes,
                          Dave

                          Dave Wetzel
                          Vice-Chair TfL
                          Tel: 020 7126 4200
                          --------------------------


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
                          To: Wetzel Dave; 'Roy Langston' <roy_langston1@...>; 'Paul Metz' <metz@...>; 'Jeffery J. Smith' <jjs@...>
                          CC: 'Mark Porthouse' <lists1@...>; 'Dan Sullivan' <pimann@...>; 'Eric Britton' <eric.britton@...>; 'Julien Gross' <geo.democracy@...>; 'Land Cafe Group' <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; 'Harry Pollard' <henrygeorgeschool@...>; 'Julien Gross' <julien.gross@...>; 'fernando scornik' <madrid@...>; 'Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1' <brianhodgson@...>
                          Sent: Wed Apr 04 02:16:20 2007
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                          Dave,



                          What does the “residual method of valuation” mean?



                          Harry



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

                          Henry George School of Social Science

                          of Los Angeles.

                          Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                          818 352-4141

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



                          From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                          To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                          Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                          The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.



                          Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?



                          However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.



                          1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                          2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                          3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                          i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                          ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                          iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                          See:

                          http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                          Dave
                          President, the Labour Land Campaign
                          Tel: 020 7126 4200

                          www.Labour Land.org



                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                          To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                          Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                          Hello, All;


                          Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                          >Why are these victims victims?



                          They are net losers under the system.



                          >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



                          That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                          >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                          I doubt it.



                          >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.


                          ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                          -- Roy Langston



                          ________________________________

                          Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com>



                          ***********************************************************************************
                          The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

                          If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

                          This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
                          ***********************************************************************************



                        • walterhorn
                          ... city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same †hence the
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 7, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard"
                            <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > I’ve mentioned the advantages of producing a land-value map of a
                            city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On
                            a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same â€" hence
                            the attractiveness of ‘street valuation’.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > If, on a given street, there are (say) 10 completely different
                            improvements, you could go through your multiple calculations of
                            improvements and likely get 10 different land residuals â€" even
                            though the land-value of every site would be the same.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > We should remember that a Rent collecting community would find
                            >relatively easy the valuation and publication of land values. But
                            >that won’t happen if we use land residual valuation.

                            Harry, let me ask what is probably a fairly naive question here.
                            One of the attractions of LVT (or whatever you'd like to call it)
                            for me is that landowners would no longer automatically receive
                            windfalls as a result of the improvements made by their neighbors
                            (or by the state, county, etc. in their neighborhoods). So, suppose
                            my property values have been rapidly increasing as a result of
                            everybody but me on my block expanding their houses
                            into "McMansions." If, as you recommend, there is simply a "pre-all-
                            improvements" site-value map that one should consult to obtain the
                            appropriate tax/rent that I should be required to pay, how will the
                            windfall that has inured to me as a result of my neighbors'
                            expenditures be recovered by the community (as I believe it should)?

                            Thanks. I hope this isn't something you've had to patiently explain
                            fifty times here already!

                            W
                          • Paul Metz
                            Dave Wetzel wrote: Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by trial without (too much) error ? Start with a moderate rate, avoid
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 7, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none
                              Dave Wetzel  wrote:  

                              "Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                              Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off."

                              Much easier than what Paul?

                              This is exactly what I do advocate.

                              Let's start with LVT as 10% of rental value and increase it to 40% over 3 Parliaments (approx 12 years).
                               
                              With tax cuts and a land dividend of £1000 per person,  low income people living on low value sites would be much better off. 

                               ---------------------------------------- 
                              Paul Metz:

                              Much easier than the residual method you were proposing - at least I had the impression.
                              But apparently not. Then we agree.

                              --------------------------
                               

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                              To: Wetzel Dave; henrygeorgeschool@... <henrygeorgeschool@...>; roy_langston1@... <roy_langston1@...>; jjs@... <jjs@...>
                              CC: lists1@... <lists1@...>; pimann@... <pimann@...>; eric.britton@... <eric.britton@...>; geo.democracy@... <geo.democracy@...>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; Julien.gross@... <Julien.gross@...>; madrid@... <madrid@...>; brianhodgson@... <brianhodgson@...>; hewabbott@... <hewabbott@...>; Tgwartney@... <Tgwartney@...>
                              Sent: Wed Apr 04 08:41:36 2007
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                              Dave,

                              Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                              Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off.

                              Experience with ecological tax design has shown that ex-ante valuation is unneccessary, mostly academic and a loss of time.

                              Back to Roy's earlier remark:

                              >Why are these victims
                              victims?<  They are net losers under the system.

                              Which system do you mean, the current without or the new with LVT ? I had the new situation in mind and later read that you then agree with my comment.

                              Paul Metz

                              ________________________________

                              From: Wetzel Dave [
                              mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                              Sent: woensdag 4 april 2007 7:39
                              To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                              Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                              Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                              See
                              http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                              Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                              Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                              However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                              1. You imagine the finished building.
                              2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                              3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                              4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                              5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                              6. You deduct the financing costs.
                              7. You deduct your desired profit.

                              8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                              ie the land value.

                              Best Wishes,
                              Dave

                              Dave Wetzel
                              Vice-Chair TfL
                              Tel: 020 7126 4200
                              --------------------------

                              From: Wetzel Dave [
                              mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                              Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                              To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                              Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none


                              The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.


                              Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?


                              However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.


                              1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                              2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                              3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                              i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                              ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                              iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                              See:

                              http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                              Dave
                              President, the Labour Land Campaign
                              Tel: 020 7126 4200

                              www.Labour Land.org



                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Roy Langston [
                              mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                              Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                              To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                              Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                              Hello, All;


                              Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                              >Why are these victims victims?



                              They are net losers under the system.



                              >Are they real victims, then we
                              should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



                              That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                              >In Philadelphia
                              and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                              I doubt it.



                              >I  suppose that -
                              as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.


                              ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                              -- Roy Langston


                              ________________________________





                            • Wetzel Dave
                              Paul, 1. Let s not confuse methods of valuation with the tax rate (or poundage ) we wish to introduce. 2. I didn t propose the residual method of valuation. I
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 8, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                Paul,
                                1. Let's not confuse methods of valuation with the tax rate (or poundage ) we wish to introduce.

                                2. I didn't propose the residual method of valuation. I had said it was a possible problem with the Oxford studies'  method of valuation.

                                3. I was then asked to describe it.
                                I preceded my explanation with the disclaimer that there were others better qualified than I to describe a method of valuation.

                                Best Wishes,
                                Dave

                                Dave Wetzel
                                Vice-Chair TfL
                                Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                --------------------------
                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                                To: Wetzel Dave; roy_langston1@... <roy_langston1@...>
                                CC: lists1@... <lists1@...>; pimann@... <pimann@...>; eric.britton@... <eric.britton@...>; geo.democracy@... <geo.democracy@...>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; Julien.gross@... <Julien.gross@...>; madrid@... <madrid@...>; brianhodgson@... <brianhodgson@...>; hewabbott@... <hewabbott@...>; Tgwartney@... <Tgwartney@...>
                                Sent: Sat Apr 07 21:34:58 2007
                                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                Dave Wetzel  wrote: 

                                "Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                                Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off."

                                Much easier than what Paul?

                                This is exactly what I do advocate.

                                Let's start with LVT as 10% of rental value and increase it to 40% over 3 Parliaments (approx 12 years).

                                With tax cuts and a land dividend of £1000 per person,  low income people living on low value sites would be much better off.

                                 ----------------------------------------
                                Paul Metz:

                                Much easier than the residual method you were proposing - at least I had the impression.
                                But apparently not. Then we agree.

                                --------------------------


                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                                To: Wetzel Dave; henrygeorgeschool@... <henrygeorgeschool@...>; roy_langston1@... <roy_langston1@...>; jjs@... <jjs@...>
                                CC: lists1@... <lists1@...>; pimann@... <pimann@...>; eric.britton@... <eric.britton@...>; geo.democracy@... <geo.democracy@...>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; Julien.gross@... <Julien.gross@...>; madrid@... <madrid@...>; brianhodgson@... <brianhodgson@...>; hewabbott@... <hewabbott@...>; Tgwartney@... <Tgwartney@...>
                                Sent: Wed Apr 04 08:41:36 2007
                                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                Dave,

                                Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                                Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off.

                                Experience with ecological tax design has shown that ex-ante valuation is unneccessary, mostly academic and a loss of time.

                                Back to Roy's earlier remark:

                                >Why are these victims victims?<  They are net losers under the system.

                                Which system do you mean, the current without or the new with LVT ? I had the new situation in mind and later read that you then agree with my comment.

                                Paul Metz

                                ________________________________

                                From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                                Sent: woensdag 4 april 2007 7:39
                                To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                                Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                                Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                See
                                http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf <http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf>

                                Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                                Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                                However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                                1. You imagine the finished building.
                                2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                6. You deduct the financing costs.
                                7. You deduct your desired profit.

                                8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                ie the land value.

                                Best Wishes,
                                Dave

                                Dave Wetzel
                                Vice-Chair TfL
                                Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                --------------------------

                                From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                                Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                                To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                                Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none


                                The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.


                                Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?


                                However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.


                                1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                                2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                                3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                                ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                                See:

                                http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf <http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf>

                                Dave
                                President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                Tel: 020 7126 4200

                                www.Labour Land.org



                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@... <mailto:roy_langston1@...> ]
                                Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                Hello, All;


                                Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                                >Why are these victims victims?



                                They are net losers under the system.



                                >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



                                That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                                >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                                I doubt it.



                                >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.


                                ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                                -- Roy Langston


                                ________________________________








                                ***********************************************************************************
                                The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

                                If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

                                This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
                                ***********************************************************************************
                              • Harry Pollard
                                Walter, When I became a Georgist almost 60 years ago, I was most attracted to the idea of a system that rewarded the good neighbor and penalized the bad
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 8, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  Walter,

                                   

                                  When I became a Georgist almost 60 years ago, I was most attracted to the idea of a system that rewarded the good neighbor and penalized the bad neighbor.

                                   

                                  However, this is not the way land valuation works.  As I earlier mentioned, street valuation is likely to value all sites in a street the same.  If we began separately to alter land values based on subjective valuation of the improvements, we would get into a can of worms.

                                   

                                  As we know, the most important thing about publishing land value maps is that it makes the whole process easier for the average citizen to understand.  Subjective alterations to basic site values based on the beauty or ugliness of improvements will not help understanding.

                                   

                                  So it has to be dealt with in a different way.  An old friend of mine is a pack rat.  Over the years, his house filled with junk -- beg pardon -- important things that could not be thrown away.  The important things spilled over into a front and back yards.

                                   

                                  Neighbors complained, inspectors visited and laid down the law.

                                   

                                  Friends, of whom he has many, are helping to get rid of the trash -- I mean, important things.  Also, they have been repairing the heating and hot water supply.

                                   

                                  We hope that when the inspectors return they will not red tag the house, which would mean that he was no longer allowed to live in it until it was in better condition.

                                   

                                  The house is in a good neighborhood and, interestingly, a non-Georgist acquaintance said that they could pull down the house and sell the site for half million dollars.

                                   

                                  So that's how it's dealt with in Los Angeles.

                                   

                                  I'm not particularly happy about government coming into my living room – though where there is a public health concern, it seems reasonable.

                                   

                                   I recall a case many years ago in England something that happened in a street of row housing.  These are attached homes without front gardens, with their front doors opening to the sidewalk.  If you stand on the sidewalk and look down the street, you see practically identical doorways stretching into the distance.

                                   

                                  It was council housing, provided at low rents to poorer people.

                                   

                                  In this case, a lady showed a little individuality and painted her front doorstep red.  The council was thoroughly annoyed and forced her to remove the red paint.

                                   

                                  Oh, well.

                                   

                                  Harry

                                   

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

                                  Henry George School of Social Science

                                  of Los Angeles.

                                  Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                  818 352-4141

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

                                   

                                  From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walterhorn
                                  Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 7:33 AM
                                  To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                   

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

                                  >
                                  > I’ve mentioned the advantages of producing a land-value map of a
                                  city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On
                                  a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same â€" hence
                                  the attractiveness of ‘street valuation’.
                                  >
                                  > If, on a given street, there are (say) 10 completely different
                                  improvements, you could go through your multiple calculations of
                                  improvements and likely get 10 different land residuals â€" even
                                  though the land-value of every site would be the same.

                                  > We should remember that a Rent collecting community would find

                                  >relatively easy the valuation and publication of land values. But
                                  >that won’t happen if we use land residual valuation.

                                  Harry, let me ask what is probably a fairly naive question here.
                                  One of the attractions of LVT (or whatever you'd like to call it)
                                  for me is that landowners would no longer automatically receive
                                  windfalls as a result of the improvements made by their neighbors
                                  (or by the state, county, etc. in their neighborhoods). So, suppose
                                  my property values have been rapidly increasing as a result of
                                  everybody but me on my block expanding their houses
                                  into "McMansions." If, as you recommend, there is simply a "pre-all-
                                  improvements" site-value map that one should consult to obtain the
                                  appropriate tax/rent that I should be required to pay, how will the
                                  windfall that has inured to me as a result of my neighbors'
                                  expenditures be recovered by the community (as I believe it should)?

                                  Thanks. I hope this isn't something you've had to patiently explain
                                  fifty times here already!

                                  W

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