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

FW: House price inflation

Expand Messages
  • Wetzel Dave
    Letter from you needed to suggest LVT is the solution? Dave (From Stuttgart Chairing European training session am and pm on transport financing and making the
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Letter from you needed to suggest LVT is the solution?



      Dave
      (From Stuttgart Chairing European training session am and pm on transport
      financing and making the keynote speech re London Congestion Charge and the
      need for LVT))

      Dave Wetzel

      -----Original Message-----
      From: David Reed [mailto:dbcreed@...]
      Sent: 01 October 2004 19:05
      To: Wetzel Dave
      Subject: House price inflation


      This week's Economist rates house-price inflation as one of the greatest
      threats to the world economy in its lead article; it sees it as a global
      problem which, if it goes bust ,will do more damage than a share-price
      collapse. Quite shaken to be quite honest. I know we go on in apocalyptic
      terms about the dire effects of house price inflation, but I have always
      seen the Economist as a reassuring presence amidst the thunder and
      lightning of Georgist prophecy. Dave Reed

      _________________________________________________________________
      Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
      http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger



      ***********************************************************************************
      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.
      ***********************************************************************************
    • Mark Porthouse
      For some background on house price dynamics in the UK (i.e. the factors that drive house prices - and there are quite a few!) this is a good document to start
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        For some background on house price dynamics in the UK (i.e. the factors that
        drive house prices - and there are quite a few!) this is a good document to
        start with:
        http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt0403f.pdf
        which explains that the UK has all the worst factors for house price
        boom/bust cycles!
        and then some further documents from here:
        http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp09132b00&sp-q=house&Search.x=0&Search
        .y=0&Search=Search
        (you may need to join that URL back together in your browser's address bar)
        It is a search on 'house' in
        http://www.bis.org/

        Certainly LVT would be a massive help (and probably have the largest single
        effect), but the other factors could do with being addressed too.

        I'm considering writing to my Member of Parliament about this.

        Cheers,

        Mark

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:davewetzel@...]
        > Sent: 03 October 2004 23:49
        > To: 'Land Café ( lc1)'
        > Subject: [LandCafe] FW: House price inflation
        >
        >
        > Letter from you needed to suggest LVT is the solution?
        >
        > Dave Wetzel
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: David Reed [mailto:dbcreed@...]
        > Sent: 01 October 2004 19:05
        > To: Wetzel Dave
        > Subject: House price inflation
        >
        >
        > This week's Economist rates house-price inflation as one of the greatest
        > threats to the world economy in its lead article; it sees it as a global
        > problem which, if it goes bust ,will do more damage than a share-price
        > collapse. Quite shaken to be quite honest. I know we go on in apocalyptic
        > terms about the dire effects of house price inflation, but I have always
        > seen the Economist as a reassuring presence amidst the thunder and
        > lightning of Georgist prophecy. Dave Reed
      • John H Pipex
        Chaps, While it is interesting to follow all of the ins and outs of the arguments in favour of LVT in the civilised west I do wonder if there is anyone out
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Chaps,

          While it is interesting to follow all of the ins and outs of the arguments
          in favour of LVT in the civilised west I do wonder if there is anyone out
          there in the developing world who sees LVT as a better solution for, say,
          Zimbabwe and South Africa than the expropriation of “white” farms as a means
          to capture the productive value for the “locals”.

          I have long believed that the best contribution we in the west can make to
          the developing counties is to try to persuade them to learn from our
          mistakes rather than sending them food parcels when they haven’t.

          Any thoughts?

          John


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Paul Metz
          Paul Metz: I support this idea. There is much talk about bringing good governance to developing countries and the important component good taxation is
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Paul Metz:

            I support this idea. There is much talk about bringing 'good governance' to
            developing countries and the important component 'good taxation' is usually
            forgotten. "The Chinese don't want clean cars, they want our cars first",
            etc.
            A practical complication is that receivers of good advice usually look at
            the own behaviour of the advisor. I have advised to introduce environmental
            taxes in countries before they introduce - and instead of - labour taxes,
            but that was and will be for some time seen as too revolutionary.

            And as LVT disconnects the rent from the property title it would indeed make
            nationalisation or redistribution of the land ownwership unnecessary.


            _____________________________________________


            -----Original Message-----
            From: John H Pipex [mailto:john.havercroft@...]
            Sent: maandag 4 oktober 2004 13:07
            To: 'Land Café ( lc1) '
            Subject: [LandCafe] LVT worldwide



            Chaps,

            While it is interesting to follow all of the ins and outs of the arguments
            in favour of LVT in the civilised west I do wonder if there is anyone out
            there in the developing world who sees LVT as a better solution for, say,
            Zimbabwe and South Africa than the expropriation of “white” farms as a means
            to capture the productive value for the “locals”.

            I have long believed that the best contribution we in the west can make to
            the developing counties is to try to persuade them to learn from our
            mistakes rather than sending them food parcels when they haven’t.

            Any thoughts?

            John


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







            Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
            (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
            To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
            To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Mark Porthouse
            Hi John, Very good point. Certainly LVT would appear to be an important part of land reform (as in agrarian land redistribution ). However, LVT in itself will
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi John,

              Very good point. Certainly LVT would appear to be an important part of land
              reform (as in 'agrarian land redistribution'). However, LVT in itself will
              only slowly enable the redistribution of land as it does not 'give' land
              back to those who should have a right to land.

              But LVT should aid land redistribution: Land redistribution is often
              particularly successful when the current owners, from whom the land is being
              taken, are recompensed for their loss of land (rather than having their land
              confiscated). Implementation of LVT a number of years before redistribution
              should make recompense (at roughly market value) easier due to the lower
              market values of land. This in turn enables more land to be redistributed as
              the money available will go further.

              Certainly LVT after redistribution will mean that the new land owners
              (recipients of land redistribution) will be less likely to sell their new
              land to make a quick buck on the speculative land market that is usually
              present in the absence of LVT.

              As a newbie on the subject, I stand to be corrected on the any/all of the
              above! :)

              Cheers,

              Mark

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: John H Pipex [mailto:john.havercroft@...]
              > Sent: 04 October 2004 12:07
              > To: 'Land Café ( lc1) '
              > Subject: [LandCafe] LVT worldwide
              >
              > Chaps,
              >
              > While it is interesting to follow all of the ins and outs of the arguments
              > in favour of LVT in the civilised west I do wonder if there is anyone out
              > there in the developing world who sees LVT as a better solution for, say,
              > Zimbabwe and South Africa than the expropriation of “white” farms
              > as a means
              > to capture the productive value for the “locals”.
              >
              > I have long believed that the best contribution we in the west can make to
              > the developing counties is to try to persuade them to learn from our
              > mistakes rather than sending them food parcels when they haven’t.
              >
              > Any thoughts?
              >
              > John
            • ADuffield1@aol.com
              In a message dated 05/10/04 8:51:18, lists1@markporthouse.net writes:
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 05/10/04 8:51:18, lists1@... writes:

                << Certainly LVT would appear to be an important part of land

                reform (as in 'agrarian land redistribution'). However, LVT in itself will

                only slowly enable the redistribution of land as it does not 'give' land

                back to those who should have a right to land. >>

                Hi Mark,

                Everyone has a "right to land", because everyone needs to share in the
                Earth's resources.
                But, given the impossibility of equity in terms of fertility, access to
                markets etc, the answer is to redistribute the wealth that accrues to the ownership
                of such resources.

                LVT collects that wealth, upfront in some scenarios, allowing for immediate
                redistribution through public investment and/or a citizen's dividend.

                We don't need to "give land [i.e. natural resources] back" to anyone - just
                collect and share its community created value. And that's as true for Zimbabwe
                as it is for Alaska.

                Best wishes,

                Andrew Duffield
              • ejdodson@comcast.net
                Ed Dodson responding... ... Ed here: South Africa has a very long history of LVT (in Johannesburg and Cape Town if my memory serves me). And, there are a few
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ed Dodson responding...
                  John Pipex wrote:

                  > While it is interesting to follow all of the ins and outs of the arguments
                  > in favour of LVT in the civilised west I do wonder if there is anyone out
                  > there in the developing world who sees LVT as a better solution for, say,
                  > Zimbabwe and South Africa than the expropriation of �white� farms as a means
                  > to capture the productive value for the �locals�.
                  >
                  Ed here:
                  South Africa has a very long history of LVT (in Johannesburg and Cape Town if my memory serves me). And, there are a few South African citizens still trying to convince the government at various levels that this tool is the best solution to achieving land reform. Minority rule in these and many other "emerging" nations is being replaced by majority rule, but this does not necessarily set the stage for governance by the rule of law or by objective implementation of sound public policies.

                  We have the experience of trying to effect constructive change in Russia for more than a decade. The best that can be said is that there is now at least a cadre of Russian intellectuals, officials and activists who understand the issues and are working to introduce LVT in the face of tremendous internal and external pressures.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Mark Porthouse
                  Thanks Andrew, Can you tell I m only just getting to grips with this! Yes, that has been something I ve been trying to understand - the idea of regular
                  Message 8 of 8 , Oct 5, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks Andrew,

                    Can you tell I'm only just getting to grips with this!

                    Yes, that has been something I've been trying to understand - the idea of
                    regular monetary compensation instead of land ownership.

                    So does this mean that there is a better option than land redistribution? I
                    don't know.

                    Replacing land redistribution with monetary compensation doesn't really
                    address the food security issue though - after all, the monetary
                    compensation can stop. Sure, in the same way privately owned land can be
                    invaded/repossessed, which is a similar risk to food security. However,
                    perhaps ceasing of monetary compensation is more likely - especially when
                    recommended by the IMF! I don't think that the IMF ever recommends
                    redistribution of land to the wealthy, but it certainly has been known to
                    recommend a withholding of benefits from the poor (whether health or
                    education, etc.).

                    Cheers,

                    Mark

                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: ADuffield1@... [mailto:ADuffield1@...]
                    > Sent: 05 October 2004 11:19
                    > To: lists1@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] LVT worldwide
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > In a message dated 05/10/04 8:51:18, lists1@... writes:
                    >
                    > << Certainly LVT would appear to be an important part of land
                    >
                    > reform (as in 'agrarian land redistribution'). However, LVT in itself will
                    >
                    > only slowly enable the redistribution of land as it does not 'give' land
                    >
                    > back to those who should have a right to land. >>
                    >
                    > Hi Mark,
                    >
                    > Everyone has a "right to land", because everyone needs to share in the
                    > Earth's resources.
                    > But, given the impossibility of equity in terms of fertility, access to
                    > markets etc, the answer is to redistribute the wealth that
                    > accrues to the ownership
                    > of such resources.
                    >
                    > LVT collects that wealth, upfront in some scenarios, allowing for
                    > immediate
                    > redistribution through public investment and/or a citizen's dividend.
                    >
                    > We don't need to "give land [i.e. natural resources] back" to
                    > anyone - just
                    > collect and share its community created value. And that's as true
                    > for Zimbabwe
                    > as it is for Alaska.
                    >
                    > Best wishes,
                    >
                    > Andrew Duffield
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.