Re: facing facts
- Harry Pollard wrote:
>The very first economic reform is that all thatLikewise if you collect more than 100%, so we are back to
>belongs to labor should be retained by labor.
>That is perhaps the ethical basis for full Rent
>collection. Collect less than 100% and you "tax"
>labor for the benefit of some.
your anti-scientific nonsense of zero tolerance.
>OK, we'll leave Clairton and other real worldOf course I am aware of them. I just want you to specify
>examples of Rent collection out of it -
>particularly as you are apparently unaware of
how you imagine they support your claims. Why get snotty
just because I identify the fact that you cannot provide
any evidence for your claims?
Oh, right, I forgot: you need to divert attention from the
fact that your claims are unsupportable by fact or logic.
>You mix up valuation and collection.No, of course I don't. The subject is collection, not
>Let's stay with valuation. You "conclusively" denyApparently you are unaware that I'm not exactly the first
>that the full Rent can be collected because valuation
>is not 100% accurate. So you say we should collect
>99% to "err on the side of caution".
>I'm not sure whether you really mean this.
LVT advocate to suggest recovering less than 100% of rent
-- that in fact, Henry George himself also suggested it.
>Any valuation is subject to error. Experience isNo, of coure it isn't. Knowledge of and respect for the
>the quality most important in valuation.
relevant facts is incomparably more important than
experience. A stupid, miseducated, deluded, dishonest,
sloppy and incompetent appraiser with 40 years of
"experience" will be less competent and less accurate than
an intelligent, thoughtful, informed, honest and diligent
appraiser with only four years' experience.
>You suggest that overvaluing Rent by 1% will leadNo, I identified the fact that overcollecting it by 1%
>to horrendous consequences.
would lead to worse consequences than undercollecting it by
I have asked you repeatedly what would be lost by
recovering 99% of rent instead of the 100% you insist is
necessary, and you have never provided an answer.
>Yet now "overvaluing"Again, you have never provided any evidence for this claim.
>of Rent by private landholders is way above 1%.
>Rack-rent takes everything it can, far more thanEvidence = 0.
>1% of Rent.
>However, you don't understand rack-rent so you cannotI understand the fact that you have never been able to
>understand the insignificance of that 1%.
provide any factual or logical support for your claims that
rack-rent is both pervasive and significant relative to
rent. You also employ a definition of rack-rent which is
not supported by any dictionary I am aware of.
>Reducing the valuations by 1% is a political decision.Irrelevant, as rate x valuation is nowhere near the full
>As I mentioned, in California (and other places) they
>reduce the valuations by 75% - then increase the rate.
land rent in CA.
>You say:No, you are just ignorant of the fact that it is supported
>"At the margin, the effect on allocation of
>over-charging land users is far out of proportion
>to the effect of under-charging them the same amount.
>Therefore, targeting 100% rent recovery is a foolish
>notion that ignores the known effects of investor
>You apparently have nothing to support this contention.
by actual historical examples, such as the abandonment of
land in the Late Roman Empire because of over-taxation, as
well as by a copious economics literature regarding risk.
"Nothing to support this contention" would, however, more
accurately describe the situation regarding your own claims
about rack-rent and the imagined necessity to recover
exactly 100% of rent.
>Apparently, you don't know that the margin is "theWrong. Apparently, you are also ignorant of the fact that
>best available rent-free land".
in economics, "the margin" refers to any situation where
the smallest differences in costs and anticipated returns
affect economic decisions.
>Charging Rent on rent-free land is a peculiar thought.It is indeed, which is apparently why you fabricated it.
>You wrote a long paragraph (beginning "Thirdly..." )Of which you were, inevitably, unable to identify any.
>that I suggested contained many errors.
>Major error is your apparent wish to provide peopleA claim that a uniform, universal tax exemption is
>with welfare exemptions from the 'exorbitant' Rent
"welfare" is of course just flatly false, as well as deeply
>Funnily enough in order to help the poorNo, that is just another fabrication on your part. I did
>you will apparently give everyone, including Bill
not say it was to help the poor. I said it was to
compensate everyone for the violation of their rights to
use land, and to ensure that all had access to sufficient
land to live on without having to pay any rent, as is their
>In a Georgist society, Rent is a value created by theNo, of course it isn't. That is just a meaningless
>community that attaches to a location.
concatenation of words you have concocted. Value of what?
Created how? By what community? "Attaches" how?
>A user of theNo, that is of course just flatly false. Rent is
>location will be benefited by that value. If he pays the
>Rent it is because he gets it - a zero-sum transaction.
determined by the most productive available user, not the
actual user. Those who cannot use land as productively as
the most productive available user will therefore not be
able to obtain the full rent by using the land. They will
therefore be paying more rent than the benefit they get in
>So your statements that:No, they are simply facts of which you happen to be
>"If there is no universal LVT exemption, the rights
>of those who can't afford to pay any rent because
>they can barely keep food on the table are violated
>without compensation. "
>"As relegating them to marginal land that yields
>no rent would condemn them to destitution and
>- are a might peculiar.
>Someone who is so unfortunate he canAnd starve, as he is not as productive as the most
>make no use of Rent can use marginal land.
productive available user, who will be willing to pay
$1/acre-year to use that land.
>In a Georgist society, land would probably be quiteNo, it most certainly would not, as the absence of any tax
>productive at the margin.
burden on production would make even very poor land capable
of yielding at least some rent. How much land could an
untaxed rancher, eco-tourism operator or trapper afford to
pay $1/yr rent on?
>It seems you have a problem understanding Rent as isNo, the exchange actually proved that I understand rent and
>indicated by this exchange.
you do not, because you insist on considering it "a value
created by the community that attaches to a location,"
rather than what it is: the additional economic advantage
obtained by using valuable land rather than marginal land.
>You said:No, it actually proves that I know what rent is and you do
>>Thirdly, not allowing a flat, universal personal
>>exemption sufficient to ensure everyone's access to
>>enough land to live on
>What will prevent anyone's access to enough land to
>You replied with customary courtesy:
>"Lack of wherewithal to pay the rent. Duh."
>Again, this shows you have little understanding
>of the nature of Rent.
>In a Georgist society, people will freely choseNo, they most certainly will not, as they will be excluded
>where to work and live.
from using all land on which they are unable or unwilling
to pay the rent. The violation of their right to use such
land must therefore rightly be compensated.
>Although, two locations may have identical Rents,He might. And he might not. If he is among the least
>one may suit you, the other will not. Less
>qualified labor may not be able to work or live on
>New York's Fifth Avenue, but he might well make -
>and enjoy - a good living in Punxsutawney.
productive, he will definitely not.
>Similarly, you and I might have trouble using FifthOTC, Trump appears to have a problem whenever he can't
>Avenue locations, for the Rents would kill us.
>Trump would have no problem.
wring a tax abatement out of the local city council.
>You want an exemption from Rent collection because:All true. But not relevant to the point.
>>depriving people of access to land is a violation of
>>their rights that must rightly be compensated.
>Seems to me that I pay Rent to the community because
>they created it. That seems fair. But the basic
>reason for paying Rent to the community is that it
>is a particularly elegant method of achieving a
>society of 'liberty and justice for all'. It will
>achieve a genuine 'level playing field'. Its
>economic advantages are abundant.
>It will ensureOh? How?
>"everybody's access to enough land to live on"
>without the need to complicate it with massI have observed your lack of hesitation in embracing error
>exemptions and suchlike palliatives that I have no
>hesitation in labeling nonsense.
and folly before.
>Your major reason for Rent exemptions appears toand that:
>be that collection of Rent would lead people to:
>>"destitution and starvation"
>>"provision for them would have to be made inIt's not the result of collecting rent. That is just
>>public expenditures, "
>Hey, Roy, if that's the result of collecting Rent
>I wouldn't support it any longer if I were you.
another fabrication on your part. It's the result of
depriving people of access to opportunity without just
compensation, which also happens if rent is NOT collected,
as the existence of welfare and all the other
income-support programs proves.
-- Roy Langston
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
Speculative land values (sales prices) attach to even the most inhospitable tracts.
Who knows? Maybe next year . . . .?
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Tujunga CA 91042
Quoting Harry Pollard on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:50:16 -0700:
we cannot produce land, and because it cannot be moved to the
producer who needs it, the market price mechanism cannot work.
Could at one time; extend the frontier. Sadly, this often
involved such atrocities as "ethnic cleansing". The main
impediment anciently was shipping. Could perhaps again
if e.g., sea floor could be colonized, LOST permitting.
Also rafts and artificial upwellings in the ocean, use
of desert lands, esp. if water can be brought in(*), etc.
* Is speculation against that possibility a reason
for high prices for currently-unusable desert lands?